JavaScript’s trademark problem

[2025-08-29] dev, javascript
(Ad, please don’t block)

In this blog post, we discuss Oracle’s trademark of the word “JavaScript”:

  • What are the problems caused by that trademark?
  • How can we fix those problems?

Oracle has a trademark for the word “JavaScript”  

Oracle inherited the trademark for the word “JavaScript” from Sun Microsystems, along with a trademark for “Java”. What does that mean? “[...] using the word “JavaScript” to describe your work, product, or even a conference could carry legal risk.” Source: javascript.tm

The many names of JavaScript  

During its lifetime, JavaScript has had several names:

  • During development, its name was Mocha.
  • In the Netscape Navigator 2.0 betas (September 1995), it was called LiveScript.
  • In Netscape Navigator 2.0 beta 3 (December 1995), it got its most common name, JavaScript. Why that name? JavaScript was going to be a glue language for components written in Java.
  • The first standard for JavaScript was published in 1997, hosted by Ecma International (called ECMA at the time). Due to the trademark, that standard couldn’t use the word “JavaScript” – which is why “ECMAScript” was chosen. That name was thought to be temporary and therefore it being slightly ugly didn’t matter.

How can we improve the current situation?  

Solution: forcing Oracle to give up the trademark  

Deno is suing Oracle to force them to relinquish their trademark. They are currently asking for donations to help them with that effort.

If that effort succeeds then two things will change:

  • Using the term “JavaScript” would not be legally risky anymore.
  • “ECMAScript” could be renamed to “JavaScript standard”.

Solution: using a new name  

We could also come up with a new name and simply use that one instead of JavaScript. The following would be good names but, alas, we can’t really use them because they don’t match the established filename extension .js:

  • WebScript
  • LiveScript (JavaScript’s previous name)
  • ECMAScript

Two more options that are not as nice but fit the filename extension:

  • JoyScript
  • JiveScript (derived from LiveScript)

What would be the consequences of doing that?

  • Again: A single name could be used for language and language standard
  • An enormous downside is that existing content about JavaScript would be outdated and JavaScript would effectively have two names now: JavaScript and the new name.

Solution: not using a name  

In the early 2010s, Chris Williams created a “community logo” for JavaScript. And he deliberately called it a “JS logo”. Everyone knew what he meant but there were to trademark issues. In other word: “JS” could be the new name of JavaScript.

What would be the consequences of doing that?

  • ECMAScript could be called “JS standard”.
  • People would slowly use “JS” instead of “JavaScript” everywhere.
  • Old content would not look as outdated because people would simply (and mostly correctly) think that “JS” is an abbreviation for “JavaScript”.

Further reading