[nneonneo]

In the original Comodo forum thread about this issue (where the CEO made some claims about owning the 90-day certificate) there is this new response from a staff member (https://forums.comodo.com/general-discussion-off-topic-anyth...):

> With LE now being an operational business, we were never going to take the these trademark applications any further. Josh posted a link to the application and as of February 8th it was already in a state where it will lapse.

> Josh was wrong when he said we’d “refused to abandon our applications”. We just hadn’t told LE we would leave them to lapse.

> We have now communicated this to LE.

On LE's blog post, they mention that they have repeatedly asked Comodo to abandon the applications since March 2016. If Comodo was going to let the applications lapse as they claim, why not communicate this at the earliest opportunity?

To me this is a dodgy answer at best. I am not so familiar with trademark law, but I don't believe that an application "being in a state where it will lapse" is in any way disarmed - it is my impression that Comodo could simply have opted to continue the process, but is pretending that they wouldn't have in order to avoid bad press.

[MaulingMonkey]

> If Comodo was going to let the applications lapse as they claim, why not communicate this at the earliest opportunity?

Poor internal communication between the people talking with Comodo and the decisionmakers? Not wanting to give the time of day to the competition, lest they avoiding wasting their time and resources? Deferring committing to the decision until the last moment, in case they change their mind? I can buy it.

> it is my impression that Comodo could simply have opted to continue the process, but is pretending that they wouldn't have in order to avoid bad press.

Based on my (non-lawyer) understanding, a trademark application sounds very much like "not a trademark", and an application that Comodo would eventually lose thanks to clear and conflicting objections from the people actually using the term. I don't think they could've continued indefinitely. I think they would have eventually dropped the process, if only through inaction by allowing the application to expire. I can buy that they were at the point where they were planning internally to drop the process.

Not out of any noble reasons, mind you - they'd have dropped it earlier, I think, if those were the cause. Filing in the first place may have been an act of bad faith. It's just not in Comodo's best interests to not fight a loosing battle to the point that it looses them the war, so to speak. Although it might be a bit late for that.

[hosh]

How is it that the Comodo CEO kept assuming Let's Encrypt and ISRG is a business, when it isn't? It's like he's fixated on that assumption and is dragging everyone else into it.

Further, the last time I read through things about trademarks, my understanding is that they don't work the way some of the people posting say it does. Trademarks are influenced by whether it is a distinguishing mark or not. You can lose trademark protection if it comes into common use. Once registered, you have to keep defending it as a distinguishing mark. So I'm not sure where the "paralegal" in that forum thread is coming up with the argument that it somehow works like a "first-to-file" -- the person who possesses the paperwork possesses the right.

Maybe my understanding is incorrect. If it isn't off though, I can see their lawyers saying, Comodo really doesn't have much of a case (but it'd still eat up a lot of time and resources a small non-profit won't have).

[jlgaddis]

The paralegal in that forum thread is also talking about copyright -- and claims some knowledge about it. Yet this issue centers around trademarks, which are very different from copyrights.