That 2nd example is a pretty bad example of JavaScript being used as a Oracle trademark.

Id argue the opposite. The wording makes no reference to oracles ownership of the product or name that is JavaScript. And ECMA is reffered to as the "maker" of the standard.

If anything, this is an example by Oracle themselves using the trademark in a generic context.

Its like cocacola calling themselves "a producer of fanta" and referring to a the food and drug administration to define what that means.

I doubt the writer of that doc was aware that Oracle owns the JavaScript trademark.

Oracle develops, maintains, and sells 2 different JavaScript runtimes. They’re definitely using it.

So do many other entities.

Oracle does not control the specification of the language (ECMA does), nor does it own rights to the original implementation (I believe Mozilla does).

I don’t think that matters in the context of the JavaScript trademark. Within the context of the trademark Oracle does have business developing and selling JavaScript.

They also have business developing and selling multiple SQL implementations, does that mean they should get a trademark on the name SQL?

Yep, and it now features as a supported language in their latest database version. That might be another reason they continue to protect the trademark.

wow, they filed for it in 1995? that’s wayyy before Node.Js or Dahl came on the scene. Or before the language even mattered that much.

Yes.

Even though one may not like it, the trademark fairly belongs to Oracle.

Again, that's the point of the suit. It likely does not.