> If we had had bad intentions at that moment we could have still pursued the trademark at that time. Instead, we left the process to expire, leading to this official response from USPTO in September of the same year: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780 “Status: Abandoned because the applicant failed to respond”.

The actual rejection: https://uspto.report/TM/88703784/OOA20200227112123#2

> The attached evidence from Webassembly and Wikipedia shows that WASM is a programming language. Here, applicant provides various software, which presumably involves the use of the aforementioned programming language.

> In total, the above evidence results in the determination that in relation to the goods and/or services applicant provides, the context therefor, and to someone who knows what the goods and/or services are, WASM conveys an immediate idea about a feature or characteristic of applicant’s goods and/or services, namely, that they consist of software involving the programming language WASM. Accordingly, the proposed mark, WASM is merely descriptive and registration is properly refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1).

> 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.