4 ms·

> If we had had bad intentions at that moment we could have still pursued the trademark at that time. Instead, we left the process to expire, leading to this of

by csomar 5y ago

> If we had had bad intentions at that moment we could have still pursued the trademark at that time. Instead, we left the process to expire, leading to this official response from USPTO in September of the same year: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780 https://uspto.report/TM/88703780 “Status: Abandoned because the applicant failed to respond”. The actual rejection: https://uspto.report/TM/88703784/OOA20200227112123#2 https://uspto.report/TM/88703784/OOA20200227112123#2 > The attached evidence from Webassembly and Wikipedia shows that WASM is a programming language. Here, applicant provides various software, which presumably involves the use of the aforementioned programming language. > In total, the above evidence results in the determination that in relation to the goods and/or services applicant provides, the context therefor, and to someone who knows what the goods and/or services are, WASM conveys an immediate idea about a feature or characteristic of applicant’s goods and/or services, namely, that they consist of software involving the programming language WASM. Accordingly, the proposed mark, WASM is merely descriptive and registration is properly refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1). > Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

paxys 5y ago
Yep. The post makes it sound like they abandoned the application because of the goodness of their hearts, but really it was obviously going to be rejected because they had no response to the straightforward questions by the USPTO.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  It wasn't going to be rejected. It was rejected for solid reasons and they decided not to waste time appealing.
syrusakbary 5y ago
The link provided is a non-final action (Feb 26, 2020) that can be rebated with further evidence, as stated by both the description of the reply (NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN) and the text: > Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below As mentioned in the article, Wasmer could have still tried to submit further evidence and arguments in support of registration, but instead we left the process to expire, leading to the ABANDONMENT of the trademark. Hope this makes things more clear!
- paulgb 5y ago
  > Wasmer could have still tried to submit further evidence “Tried” is the operative word here though, no? What possible evidence could convince the USPTO to let a company trademark a name already in use for the same thing?
  - syrusakbary 5y ago
    > What possible evidence could convince the USPTO to let a company trademark a name already in use for the same thing by a company that is not its original creator? Not sure, as we didn't tried to pursue further. Perhaps there was a way to get the trademark, or perhaps there wasn't (no idea, really... and I guess we will never know! although a negative answer is the most probable one). But there are other examples such as Javascript owned by Oracle, where they didn't create the technology but they owned the trademark, so it's definitely possible [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344049
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      > no idea, really... and I guess we will never know Really? It appears to be blatantly obvious to everyone but you.
    - initplus 5y ago
      Do you see how comparing your company to Oracle is not the most flattering? Oracle owns the Javascript trademark because it was originally owned by Sun, who trademarked it under an agreement with Netscape who are the original authors of Javascript. Oracle at least has legal claim to the trademark. There obviously is not a way to get trademarks on WASM or Webassembly. If you admit the trademarks were applied for in error, why continue pretending there was a chance they would be granted?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - syrusakbary 5y ago
burnte 5y ago
Those are two different applications for two different marks. The article linked Webassembly while you linked WASM.
- csomar 5y ago
  Here is the rejection for WebAssembly: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780/OOA20200227112217/ https://uspto.report/TM/88703780/OOA20200227112217/
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Isn't it interesting how much the PR post (calling it an 'article' is a misnomer) downplays Wasmer's efforts to trademark "wasm"? It's almost like the effort to trademark "wasm" belies the bad faith intentions of Wasmer amd they want to avoid drawing attention to it. The whole "it's not our fault, blame our lawyers" combined with "we decided to wait on issuing a non-apology until we thought the conversation would be productive for us" really doesn't make Wasmer look good.
  - syrusakbary 5y ago
    We didn't pretend to put fault on anyone, just portray the situation as it happened. I think is worth to make one thing clear: as CEO the fault is and ultimately will be always mine. Not the lawyers, not anyone else.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      The closest you come to accepting personal resposibility in that post is: > I wrongly assumed the foundation and trademark process had halted. Even this looks like trying to shift the blame elsewhere. You don't appoligize for starting the trademarking process or even try to justify why you thought that "wasm" was an appropriate thing to try to trademark. Instead you downplay it while making misleading statements like > The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was requesting more information to pursue the WebAssembly trademark. The USPTO was not "requesting more information", they denied your application while giving you room to appeal with additional information. What you are doing is like trying to claim that a judge who informs you of your right to appeal is "requesting you provide more information". In addition, the USPTO record shows that your attorneys withdrew from the trademark case several weeks prior to the DM screenshot you posted where you claim ignorance. As part of that withdrawal, your lawyer attested, under penalty of law, that you had been notified about the current state of those filings. When your verifiable statements have such a loose relationship with truth, it really casts doubts on your unverifiable statements about your intentions. When you have your employees jump in to try to praise you "transparency", it is easy to jump to the assumption that this goes beyong self-serving distortion into willful deceit.

by csomar 5y ago

paxys 5y ago

Yep. The post makes it sound like they abandoned the application because of the goodness of their hearts, but really it was obviously going to be rejected because they had no response to the straightforward questions by the USPTO.

HWR_14 5y ago
It wasn't going to be rejected. It was rejected for solid reasons and they decided not to waste time appealing.

syrusakbary 5y ago

The link provided is a non-final action (Feb 26, 2020) that can be rebated with further evidence, as stated by both the description of the reply (NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN) and the text: > Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below As mentioned in the article, Wasmer could have still tried to submit further evidence and arguments in support of registration, but instead we left the process to expire, leading to the ABANDONMENT of the trademark. Hope this makes things more clear!

paulgb 5y ago
> Wasmer could have still tried to submit further evidence “Tried” is the operative word here though, no? What possible evidence could convince the USPTO to let a company trademark a name already in use for the same thing?
- syrusakbary 5y ago
  > What possible evidence could convince the USPTO to let a company trademark a name already in use for the same thing by a company that is not its original creator? Not sure, as we didn't tried to pursue further. Perhaps there was a way to get the trademark, or perhaps there wasn't (no idea, really... and I guess we will never know! although a negative answer is the most probable one). But there are other examples such as Javascript owned by Oracle, where they didn't create the technology but they owned the trademark, so it's definitely possible [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344049
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > no idea, really... and I guess we will never know Really? It appears to be blatantly obvious to everyone but you.
  - initplus 5y ago
    Do you see how comparing your company to Oracle is not the most flattering? Oracle owns the Javascript trademark because it was originally owned by Sun, who trademarked it under an agreement with Netscape who are the original authors of Javascript. Oracle at least has legal claim to the trademark. There obviously is not a way to get trademarks on WASM or Webassembly. If you admit the trademarks were applied for in error, why continue pretending there was a chance they would be granted?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - syrusakbary 5y ago

burnte 5y ago

Those are two different applications for two different marks. The article linked Webassembly while you linked WASM.

csomar 5y ago
Here is the rejection for WebAssembly: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780/OOA20200227112217/ https://uspto.report/TM/88703780/OOA20200227112217/
shkkmo 5y ago
Isn't it interesting how much the PR post (calling it an 'article' is a misnomer) downplays Wasmer's efforts to trademark "wasm"? It's almost like the effort to trademark "wasm" belies the bad faith intentions of Wasmer amd they want to avoid drawing attention to it. The whole "it's not our fault, blame our lawyers" combined with "we decided to wait on issuing a non-apology until we thought the conversation would be productive for us" really doesn't make Wasmer look good.
- syrusakbary 5y ago
  We didn't pretend to put fault on anyone, just portray the situation as it happened. I think is worth to make one thing clear: as CEO the fault is and ultimately will be always mine. Not the lawyers, not anyone else.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    The closest you come to accepting personal resposibility in that post is: > I wrongly assumed the foundation and trademark process had halted. Even this looks like trying to shift the blame elsewhere. You don't appoligize for starting the trademarking process or even try to justify why you thought that "wasm" was an appropriate thing to try to trademark. Instead you downplay it while making misleading statements like > The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was requesting more information to pursue the WebAssembly trademark. The USPTO was not "requesting more information", they denied your application while giving you room to appeal with additional information. What you are doing is like trying to claim that a judge who informs you of your right to appeal is "requesting you provide more information". In addition, the USPTO record shows that your attorneys withdrew from the trademark case several weeks prior to the DM screenshot you posted where you claim ignorance. As part of that withdrawal, your lawyer attested, under penalty of law, that you had been notified about the current state of those filings. When your verifiable statements have such a loose relationship with truth, it really casts doubts on your unverifiable statements about your intentions. When you have your employees jump in to try to praise you "transparency", it is easy to jump to the assumption that this goes beyong self-serving distortion into willful deceit.