The JavaScript™ trademark saga, round 4
What the latest Deno v. Oracle filing means for developers—and why Hacker News is once again aflame.
1. A quick refresher: how we got here
- 1995 → 2009 Sun Microsystems registered “JavaScript” as a trademark; Oracle inherited it with the Sun acquisition.
- Sept 2024 Ryan Dahl (creator of Node.js and now CEO of Deno Land) published an open letter signed by 18 000+ engineers asking Oracle to relinquish the mark.
- Nov 2024 Deno filed a petition with the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to cancel the mark on three grounds: genericness, abandonment, and fraud.
- Mar 2025 Oracle moved to dismiss the fraud count; Update 3 on the Deno blog laid out the timeline and legal theories in detail. (deno.com (opens in a new tab))
2. Update 4: fraud claim dismissed, but the real fight begins
On 18 June 2025 the TTAB granted Oracle’s partial motion and dismissed the fraud claim. Dahl’s new post (Update 4, 27 June 2025) stresses that this is “not the heart of the case.” Deno is not amending the fraud allegations—doing so would stall proceedings. Instead the company will press forward on:
| Claim | Core argument |
|---|---|
| Genericness | “JavaScript” is the common name for a language with many independent implementations; no single company is perceived as its source. |
| Abandonment | Oracle does not use the mark in commerce in a trademark sense (its 2019 renewal relied on a Node‑.js screenshot—a project Oracle never owned). |
Key upcoming dates (barring procedural extensions):
- 7 Aug 2025 Oracle must admit/deny each paragraph of Deno’s petition.
- 6 Sept 2025 Formal discovery opens. (deno.com (opens in a new tab))
Dahl’s rallying cry: if Deno prevails, “JavaScript will be free—no more ™ symbols, no more licensing fears.” He also notes that 19 550 people have now signed the open letter at javascript.tm. (deno.com (opens in a new tab))
3. Community reaction: Hacker News turns up the heat
The blog post reached the front page of Hacker News within hours, peaking at 675 points and 226 comments. (news.ycombinator.com (opens in a new tab)) Several themes dominate the thread:
| Theme | Representative comment |
|---|---|
| “Oracle gains nothing by clinging to this mark.” | “They have an opportunity to create goodwill… but instead they’re defending something they literally do not profit off of. It’s absurd.” (news.ycombinator.com (opens in a new tab)) |
| Corporate realpolitik | Bryan Cantrill’s famous “lawn‑mower” analogy—Oracle behaves mechanistically: if you put your hand in, it chops it off. (news.ycombinator.com (opens in a new tab)) |
| Misuse of trademarks as leverage | “Oracle’s main business seems to be getting companies to sign complicated contracts, waiting a year or two, and then suing them… I haven’t met an Oracle product yet that can’t be done better by free software.” (news.ycombinator.com (opens in a new tab)) |
| Humor & renaming riffs | “We could just start calling it Eczemascript” / “TypelessScript” / “DecafScript.” (news.ycombinator.com (opens in a new tab)) |
The sentiment is overwhelmingly supportive of Deno’s effort; even sceptics of Deno-as-a-runtime view this as an ecosystem‑wide issue.
4. Why this matters beyond the courtroom
- Open‑source chilling effect – Conferences, books and tooling vendors often tip‑toe around the word “JavaScript” or license it, creating friction for newcomers and added legal review costs for companies.
- Precedent for other “genericised” tech marks – Success here could embolden challenges to dormant or defensive marks that clutter the commons (e.g., SGI’s hold on “OpenGL” in certain jurisdictions).
- Governance signal – A win would reinforce the idea that open standards (TC39 in this case) should not be shackled by legacy IP rights held by disengaged stakeholders.
- Brand perception – Oracle’s aggressive IP stance has long fuelled distrust among developers; this case maintains that narrative in the public eye.
5. What to watch next
| Date | Milestone | Possible outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| 7 Aug 2025 | Oracle’s answer | Admissions here could simplify Deno’s burden of proof. A blanket denial signals a long discovery slug‑fest. |
| Q4 2025–2026 | Discovery | Expect subpoenas for internal Oracle usage docs; deposition of branding execs; surveys on public perception (“primary significance” test). |
| 2026+ | TTAB decision / appeal | Either party can appeal to the Federal Circuit, so this could stretch several years unless a settlement is reached. |
6. Take‑aways for practitioners
- Continue using “JavaScript”—no need to panic; trademark owners rarely sue for descriptive use.
- Monitor licensing language in corporate training, documentation, and event branding. If you currently pay Oracle for a licence, re‑evaluate your risk posture.
- Support the open letter or file an amicus brief if you have standing; developer voices play a role in demonstrating genericness.
- Separate runtime choices from trademark politics—whether you run Node, Bun, or Deno, the outcome will affect all implementers equally.
TL;DR
The fraud count is gone, but Deno’s core arguments—that “JavaScript” is generic and abandoned—are alive and now on a faster track. The developer community overwhelmingly backs the cancellation, seeing it as a chance to release a 30‑year‑old language name back to the commons. Keep an eye on Oracle’s August filing; it will set the tone for the next phase of this closely watched case.