3 ms·

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 ACTI

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
      Just trying to prove a point! I kind of enjoy discussing this things openly.
      - initplus 5y ago
        Look I really don't want to be a hater, but please look at the way your words are perceived publicly. This doesn't read as open comments about trademark law, it reads as defensive and oppositional. This wasn't a huge PR challenge, all the statement needed to say was "Sorry, some lawyers we contracted applied for the trademarks in error, we have not progressed the applications and aren't claiming any ownership of the terms WASM or Webassembly". Wasmer only has controversy because basic PR like this statement has been mishandled over and over again. You need to come off as good-faith actors participating in the WASM ecosystem. Defensiveness when you have obviously done the wrong thing, arguing with commenters under what is supposed to be an apology, employees posting supportive comments of their employer on said apology without disclosure... surely it is obvious how these actions are bad PR? I know this reads really negatively but please understand that it's intended as sincere feedback. It's really important that Wasmer can reform it's image problem. There isn't any reason you guys should be perceived so negatively, if you can stop screwing up PR at every opportunity.
        syrusakbary 5y ago
        I appreciate your comment, I really do. I can understand how my comments could feel defensive. It's a personality trait that I like to discuss things to satiety, and that probably doesn't help! But it's always done with the willingness to learn and grow. I hope my appetite for discussion doesn't make our apology to the community any less valid. We made a mistake and we own it no matter what.

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
    Just trying to prove a point! I kind of enjoy discussing this things openly.
    - initplus 5y ago
      Look I really don't want to be a hater, but please look at the way your words are perceived publicly. This doesn't read as open comments about trademark law, it reads as defensive and oppositional. This wasn't a huge PR challenge, all the statement needed to say was "Sorry, some lawyers we contracted applied for the trademarks in error, we have not progressed the applications and aren't claiming any ownership of the terms WASM or Webassembly". Wasmer only has controversy because basic PR like this statement has been mishandled over and over again. You need to come off as good-faith actors participating in the WASM ecosystem. Defensiveness when you have obviously done the wrong thing, arguing with commenters under what is supposed to be an apology, employees posting supportive comments of their employer on said apology without disclosure... surely it is obvious how these actions are bad PR? I know this reads really negatively but please understand that it's intended as sincere feedback. It's really important that Wasmer can reform it's image problem. There isn't any reason you guys should be perceived so negatively, if you can stop screwing up PR at every opportunity.
      - syrusakbary 5y ago
        I appreciate your comment, I really do. I can understand how my comments could feel defensive. It's a personality trait that I like to discuss things to satiety, and that probably doesn't help! But it's always done with the willingness to learn and grow. I hope my appetite for discussion doesn't make our apology to the community any less valid. We made a mistake and we own it no matter what.