Oracle Drags Its Feet in the JavaScript Trademark Dispute

Oracle’s latest legal maneuver in the fight over the "JavaScript" trademark reveals a telling contradiction: when renewing its claim, it relied on Node.js as proof of use—now, it wants that fact ignored. Instead of addressing whether it has any legitimate right to the "JavaScript" name, Oracle is delaying the case rather than addressing the fundamental issue at hand.

A Brief Recap#

For years, Oracle has quietly held the trademark for "JavaScript," despite having no role in the language’s creation, standardization, or evolution. In 2023, Ryan Dahl (creator of Node.js and Deno) formally petitioned the USPTO to cancel Oracle’s claim, with the support of 16,000 JavaScript developers, arguing that:

• JavaScript is generic – it’s an open standard with independent implementations.
• Oracle has abandoned the mark – it neither enforces nor maintains it meaningfully.
• Oracle committed fraud – in its 2019 renewal, Oracle submitted a screenshot of the Node.js website—despite having no connection to the project—as evidence of its continued use.

Oracle stayed silent for months but has now responded with a motion to dismiss. Instead of defending its claim to the JavaScript name, the company is arguing that its use of the Node.js screenshot doesn’t matter and hoping to dismiss the fraud allegation outright.

Oracle’s Argument: "Just Ignore That Screenshot"#

Oracle’s response does not address whether "JavaScript" is a generic term. Instead, it focuses solely on dismissing the fraud claim by arguing that even if the Node.js screenshot was misleading, it doesn’t matter because they also submitted another specimen—a reference to Oracle JET, a little-known UI toolkit.

Their key arguments:

• Oracle JET proves legitimate trademark use – Oracle claims its JavaScript Extension Toolkit (Oracle JET) was the primary specimen in both Class 9 (software products) and Class 42 (technology services) during its renewal.
• The Node.js screenshot was irrelevant – Oracle asserts that even if the Node.js image was improper, it was only submitted for Class 9, and Oracle JET was enough to maintain the trademark.
• Dismiss the fraud claim, ignore the real issue – By focusing on this procedural point, Oracle is delaying any discussion about whether the "JavaScript" trademark is legitimate at all.

Oracle never explains why it used a screenshot from a project it has no connection to. Instead, it insists that even if it was misleading, it should be ignored.

Delaying the Inevitable#

By filing this motion, Oracle is delaying the core issue: whether "JavaScript" should be a trademark at all. Their legal strategy forces Deno to either:

1. Drop the fraud claim, letting Oracle off the hook for using Node.js to justify its renewal.
2. Spend months fighting a procedural issue before even reaching the real debate.

"I created Node.js and released it under the MIT license to benefit developers, not so it could be used as a legal pawn by a Fortune 500 company," Dahl said in the latest update on the Deno website. "Now, instead of correcting their misrepresentation, they’re using it to stall the case."

Oracle Has No Legitimate Claim to JavaScript#

If Oracle succeeds in keeping the mark, it sets a dangerous precedent: that companies can hold onto trademarks purely as legal leverage, even when they no longer have a meaningful claim to them.

"The situation is self-evident to anyone working in tech: Oracle did not create JavaScript," Dahl said in his latest update. "Oracle does not control JavaScript. Oracle should not own the trademark for JavaScript.

"JavaScript is defined by an open specification (ECMA-262), maintained by TC39, an industry group with representatives from Google, Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla, and others. The major implementations of JavaScript are in the browsers built by Mozilla, Google, Apple, and Microsoft. Oracle has no role in JavaScript’s governance, implementation, or evolution—yet it continues to wield this trademark as a legal cudgel."

This fight isn’t just about JavaScript—it’s about whether corporations can weaponize trademarks to control open technologies they had no part in building. If companies can claim ownership over widely adopted and openly governed technologies, it threatens the entire ecosystem of open standards. This case will set a precedent for whether trademarks can be used as a tool to exert control over technologies that have long since outgrown their original claimants.