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 (<a href="https://forums.comodo.com/general-discussion-off-topic-anything-and-everything/shame-on-you-comodo-t115958.0.html;msg837436#msg837436" rel="nofollow">https://forums.comodo.com/general-discussion-off-topic-anyth...</a>):<p>> 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.<p>> 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.<p>> We have now communicated this to LE.<p>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?<p>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.