We often use Elisp and EmacsLisp interchangeably to refer to EmacsLisp. Is this ok?

It seems that “elisp” is not a good name for Emacs Lisp. When asked, RMS said:

From: RichardStallman

 Subject: Re: elisp test case question

 To: guile-devel and other people

 Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:48:14 -0700 (MST)

 "Elisp" was a trademark in the 80s, for CCA Emacs.
 I am pretty sure it is long dead.
 But we can ask a lawyer to check.
 Eben, can you please check?

Should we prefer “Emacs Lisp” in the EmacsWiki, or is “elisp” ok? – Lars Brinkhoff

I looked in the official online database of the US trademarks office ( http://www.uspto.gov/ ) and received no results for “elisp”, I personally think it requires less energy than emacslisp. Writing it e-lisp or e.lisp or e/lisp would emphasise that it is an abbreviation. Zeth

I guess we should use Emacs Lisp. The EmacsManual doesn’t use elisp, either, except when linking to the EmacsLispManual.

Eben Moglen's response:

 From: Eben Moglen
 Subject: Re: elisp test case question
 To: guile-devel and other people
 Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 08:30:13 -0500 (EST)

 "Elisp" is not presently a registered trademark in the US for any
 software-related line of commerce.  A company called Elispot had marks
 for laboratory sensing and measurement equipment consisting of the
 word "Elisp" without graphic, but those marks appear to have been
 abandoned at the end of 2000.  There is no current record of an
 "Elisp" mark related to any version of Emacs.

考古一下，：）