It’s probably worth mentioning that in the text exchange when asked about the applications for “webassembly” and “wasm”, the response text included the followin

It’s probably worth mentioning that in the text exchange when asked about the applications for “webassembly” and “wasm”, the response text included the following: “…I’m aware we registered the Wasmer trademark, so it might be related.” However, that is not true. Wasmer was not registered, just like “Wasm” and “Webassembly” the USPTO issued an Office Action for the “Wasmer” TM application, just like the other two applications the attorney withdrew, Wasmer failed to respond to the Office Action, and the application was abandoned. With the exact same failure to respond to a USPTO Office Action for their own business name, I’m wondering did the CEO also intentionally fail to respond to the USPTO Office Action for Wasmer and if so why?