Hacker News Reader

Comment by greenspot | Hacker News Reader

Out of curiosity: Why didn't Letsencrypt applied for a trademark right at the start?

That this happens was quite foreseeable and occurs quite often if people forget to secure trademarks (I know this won't be a popular opinion because most as I like Letsencrypt and their outstanding service)

View on HN

It costs $375 (plus lawyers fees, usually) and I suspect that they just didn't think it was necessary. Lots of organizations haven't and don't bother registering, unless they expect a problem. Lots of volunteer-run software projects have better things to spend money on and just never get around to registering their name as a trademark until someone else tries to steal it out from under them.

When you're a very public open-source project whose brand is so central to success, registration is the better thing to spend their money on. Let's Encrypt did not show good judgment on this one.

EDIT: For example, they probably spent a employee/retained-attorney time worth more than $375 just to put together their Trademark Policy page. [1]

[1] https://letsencrypt.org/trademarks/

It's a fair question, though you don't actually need to register your trademark to "own" it, it just provides some advantages and of course reduces the danger that someone will do what Comodo did.

If Comodo would have actively used "Letsencrypt" as a brand paired with Comodo's registration this case would be crystal clear: Letsencrypt wouldn't own anything.

With the situation now, it's debatable but saying that a trademark 'just provides some advantages' is a bit of an understatement.

That's a bit oversimplified. If LE had used the mark first, and had taken the measure of asking Comodo to stop using it, that would show them protecting their trademark, which would give them a case. The PTO is quite clear that registration is not required for a trademark to be enforceable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com