6 ms·

this dispute is with wordpress though. “wordpress” is not a generic term. if i called my company “MSengine”, and described it as “the most trusted microsoft pla

this dispute is with wordpress though. “wordpress” is not a generic term. if i called my company “MSengine”, and described it as “the most trusted microsoft platform” (a phrase i copied straight from wpengine.com)… i would get a cease and desist almost immediately. even in the open source community, there are dozens (probably more) linux distros that have been told by ubuntu to rename their projects from “ubuntu x” to something else, for example. there are no trademark grants contained in the gpl or any of the popular open source licenses. the only mystery is why they’ve waited so long to enforce their trademark.. but matt says they’ve been working on a deal “for a while”.. and i guess we’ll have to wait until the court case to see what that means.

kadoban 2y ago
The WordPress trademark guides say explicitly that "WP" is allowed to be used by others. Several other parts of the wording the WP Engine uses are also explicitly allowed. So your whole first two paragraphs are mistaken.
- rgbrenner 2y ago
  if we’re going by the trademark policy, it also says you can’t use the wordpress name in the name of your project or service. and arguing that “wp” doesn’t mean “wordpress” and therefore is allowed, is exactly the same as me selling “msengine” for microsoft products, and telling everyone “ms” doesn’t mean microsoft. we all know what it stands for for, and if you weren’t sure, you can jut scan the page and see it’s clearly associated with wordpress. if that’s the basis of the legal defense wpengine wants to make in court, they are truly f’d.
  - ok_dad 2y ago
    > The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks Straight from the Wordpress trademark page that was just recently changed to talk shit about a competitor: https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/
    - rgbrenner 2y ago
      microsoft doesn’t have a trademark on “ms” either. like i said, if wpengine is hoping to go into court and explain that wp is not related to wordpress, while selling wordpress services… i dont think its going to go well for them. this is going to be just as flimsy of a defense as “mikerowesoft”
      - tapoxi 2y ago
        yeah but Wordpress.org explicitly said "using WP is okay". if they turn around and say "no it's not" that's promissory estoppel
        chuckadams 2y ago
        There's also "estoppel by laches", which boils down to "you waited too long". Guarantee that's going to be part of WPE's defense too. Then there's the fact that a8c actually invested in WPE while this supposed infringement was taking place. I am already running out of popcorn.
      - kadoban 2y ago
        > if wpengine is hoping to go into court and explain that wp is not related to wordpress, while selling wordpress services… i dont think its going to go well for them. Of course not. They will (if it goes that far) point out that their use of WP is explicitly in line with the trademark holder's public guidance on that exact point. You can't tell everybody that it's fine to use wording like that and then sue them when they do it.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Up until this dispute the WordPress trademark policy contained this: > The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks and you are free to use it in any way you see fit. Now it's been updated to say this: > The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks, but please don’t use it in a way that confuses people. For example, many people think WP Engine is “WordPress Engine” and officially associated with WordPress, which it’s not. They have never once even donated to the WordPress Foundation, despite making billions of revenue on top of WordPress. It's pretty clear that WP Engine has been in compliance with the old trademark policy and that the new one is acknowledging that they don't have legal standing to demand anything about the WP abbreviation (not least because they waited so long to complain about the usage) so they're instead inserting a petulant and childish slight. http://web.archive.org/web/20240101165105/https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ http://web.archive.org/web/20240101165105/https://wordpressf...
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  It also explicitly says you can't use "Wordpress" in your product names, and WP Engine is doing that. I thought it might be common, but the other big providers do not use WordPress in their product names. Essential Wordpress Core Wordpress Enterprise Wordpress https://wpengine.com/plans/ https://wpengine.com/plans/
  - brianfryer 2y ago
    > you can't use "Wordpress" in your product names, and WP Engine is doing that WP Engine is explicitly not doing that. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYPsyoSbwAACO7X?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYPsyoSbwAACO7X?format=jpg&name=...
    - lupoair 2y ago
      They just changed the naming after this dispute started.
    - WillPostForFood 2y ago
      If you are selling "Core Wordpress" WP Engine is explicitly naming a product using "Wordpress". If it was "Core WP" that would be fine.
  - ensignavenger 2y ago
    Looks like those are just headings, not product names.
    - pests 2y ago
      Wut? In what are are those not product names? Any reasonable person would assume so.
    - incredimike 2y ago
      Looks like product names to me. It’s certainly confusing at least, which is an issue either way.
  - 2y ago
mdasen 2y ago
Earlier this month, WordPress explicitly said that their trademark didn't cover "WP" https://web.archive.org/web/20240901224354/https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240901224354/https://wordpress... The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks and you are free to use it in any way you see fit. They changed the wording as of this dispute with WP Engine: The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks, but please don’t use it in a way that confuses people. For example, many people think WP Engine is “WordPress Engine” and officially associated with WordPress, which it’s not. They have never once even donated to the WordPress Foundation, despite making billions of revenue on top of WordPress. https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ Trademarks need to be defended to be valid. If I started a website "YC Hacker News", Y Combinator would need to defend their trademark (if they think they have one over "YC Hacker News") or the fact that I'm using "YC Hacker News" means they don't have a trademark over that. WP Engine has been around for over a decade. Automattic and the WordPress foundation didn't have an issue with it for such a long time. If you think someone is infringing on your trademark, you can't just let them use it and come back a decade later and change your mind. In this case, WordPress has even less argument. If Y Combinator said "you can use 'YC' and 'Hacker News' in any way you see fit," they couldn't later come back and say "nooooo, YC sounds like Y Combinator and people get confused!" The WordPress Foundation explicitly allowed everyone to use "WP" in any way they saw fit and disclaimed all trademark over "WP". Yes, lots of companies/foundations wouldn't have allowed the generic use of "WP" for anyone to use. In this case, they explicitly allowed it and also didn't have a problem with WP Engine's use for well over a decade. They waited so long to "enforce their trademark" because they don't have a trademark on "WP". They explicitly said so. Now they're trying to create a trademark on a term that's already been in generic use for a while - and explicitly blessed by the WordPress Foundation. I certainly understand Automattic not liking the fact that they're doing (and paying for) the development work on WordPress while many WordPress users pay WP Engine instead of Automattic/WordPress.com. However, the ship has sailed on claiming that people aren't allowed to use "WP". From where I'm sitting, this feels similar to Elastic, Mongo and other open-source companies disliking it when third parties make money off their open-source code. Of course, WordPress (and Automattic's WordPress.com) wouldn't be the success it is without its open-source nature (just ask Movable Type).
patmcc 2y ago
Trademarks are largely (but not exclusively) about preventing consumer confusion. I can offer a course called "Learn how to use Excel like a pro" and not get sued by MS, as long as I'm not making it seem like I'm Microsoft. Just like DigitalOcean can say "We will rent you an Ubuntu server". We can argue about whether calling something "Wordpress Hosting" or "Hosting a Wordpress site" is different, but I think WP Engine is being perfectly reasonable. "Wordpress Hosting" is as generic as Kleenex and Xerox at this point.
- neom 2y ago
  I've been thinking about this all week since this WP stuff kicked off. You know what's funny, as far as I know I was the first senior person to have a conversation with Ubuntu about that from the DO side, and as far as I recall it (granted it was a long time ago) it was basically them: "Uhm, you can't do that"- me: "maybe, not sure, but probably better to be friends tho yah?" them: "yah" me: "k" - dunno how it is today, but at least till I left, that was how it remained, always earned a shit load of respect in my book, not sure how it'd have gone for us if they decided to really get nasty, but either way, super grateful they didn't, good job Ubuntu people!!!!

kadoban 2y ago

The WordPress trademark guides say explicitly that "WP" is allowed to be used by others. Several other parts of the wording the WP Engine uses are also explicitly allowed. So your whole first two paragraphs are mistaken.

rgbrenner 2y ago
if we’re going by the trademark policy, it also says you can’t use the wordpress name in the name of your project or service. and arguing that “wp” doesn’t mean “wordpress” and therefore is allowed, is exactly the same as me selling “msengine” for microsoft products, and telling everyone “ms” doesn’t mean microsoft. we all know what it stands for for, and if you weren’t sure, you can jut scan the page and see it’s clearly associated with wordpress. if that’s the basis of the legal defense wpengine wants to make in court, they are truly f’d.
- ok_dad 2y ago
  > The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks Straight from the Wordpress trademark page that was just recently changed to talk shit about a competitor: https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/
  - rgbrenner 2y ago
    microsoft doesn’t have a trademark on “ms” either. like i said, if wpengine is hoping to go into court and explain that wp is not related to wordpress, while selling wordpress services… i dont think its going to go well for them. this is going to be just as flimsy of a defense as “mikerowesoft”
    - tapoxi 2y ago
      yeah but Wordpress.org explicitly said "using WP is okay". if they turn around and say "no it's not" that's promissory estoppel
      - chuckadams 2y ago
        There's also "estoppel by laches", which boils down to "you waited too long". Guarantee that's going to be part of WPE's defense too. Then there's the fact that a8c actually invested in WPE while this supposed infringement was taking place. I am already running out of popcorn.
    - kadoban 2y ago
      > if wpengine is hoping to go into court and explain that wp is not related to wordpress, while selling wordpress services… i dont think its going to go well for them. Of course not. They will (if it goes that far) point out that their use of WP is explicitly in line with the trademark holder's public guidance on that exact point. You can't tell everybody that it's fine to use wording like that and then sue them when they do it.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Up until this dispute the WordPress trademark policy contained this: > The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks and you are free to use it in any way you see fit. Now it's been updated to say this: > The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks, but please don’t use it in a way that confuses people. For example, many people think WP Engine is “WordPress Engine” and officially associated with WordPress, which it’s not. They have never once even donated to the WordPress Foundation, despite making billions of revenue on top of WordPress. It's pretty clear that WP Engine has been in compliance with the old trademark policy and that the new one is acknowledging that they don't have legal standing to demand anything about the WP abbreviation (not least because they waited so long to complain about the usage) so they're instead inserting a petulant and childish slight. http://web.archive.org/web/20240101165105/https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ http://web.archive.org/web/20240101165105/https://wordpressf...
WillPostForFood 2y ago
It also explicitly says you can't use "Wordpress" in your product names, and WP Engine is doing that. I thought it might be common, but the other big providers do not use WordPress in their product names. Essential Wordpress Core Wordpress Enterprise Wordpress https://wpengine.com/plans/ https://wpengine.com/plans/
- brianfryer 2y ago
  > you can't use "Wordpress" in your product names, and WP Engine is doing that WP Engine is explicitly not doing that. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYPsyoSbwAACO7X?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYPsyoSbwAACO7X?format=jpg&name=...
  - lupoair 2y ago
    They just changed the naming after this dispute started.
  - WillPostForFood 2y ago
    If you are selling "Core Wordpress" WP Engine is explicitly naming a product using "Wordpress". If it was "Core WP" that would be fine.
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  Looks like those are just headings, not product names.
  - pests 2y ago
    Wut? In what are are those not product names? Any reasonable person would assume so.
  - incredimike 2y ago
    Looks like product names to me. It’s certainly confusing at least, which is an issue either way.
- 2y ago

mdasen 2y ago

Earlier this month, WordPress explicitly said that their trademark didn't cover "WP" https://web.archive.org/web/20240901224354/https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240901224354/https://wordpress... The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks and you are free to use it in any way you see fit. They changed the wording as of this dispute with WP Engine: The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks, but please don’t use it in a way that confuses people. For example, many people think WP Engine is “WordPress Engine” and officially associated with WordPress, which it’s not. They have never once even donated to the WordPress Foundation, despite making billions of revenue on top of WordPress. https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ Trademarks need to be defended to be valid. If I started a website "YC Hacker News", Y Combinator would need to defend their trademark (if they think they have one over "YC Hacker News") or the fact that I'm using "YC Hacker News" means they don't have a trademark over that. WP Engine has been around for over a decade. Automattic and the WordPress foundation didn't have an issue with it for such a long time. If you think someone is infringing on your trademark, you can't just let them use it and come back a decade later and change your mind. In this case, WordPress has even less argument. If Y Combinator said "you can use 'YC' and 'Hacker News' in any way you see fit," they couldn't later come back and say "nooooo, YC sounds like Y Combinator and people get confused!" The WordPress Foundation explicitly allowed everyone to use "WP" in any way they saw fit and disclaimed all trademark over "WP". Yes, lots of companies/foundations wouldn't have allowed the generic use of "WP" for anyone to use. In this case, they explicitly allowed it and also didn't have a problem with WP Engine's use for well over a decade. They waited so long to "enforce their trademark" because they don't have a trademark on "WP". They explicitly said so. Now they're trying to create a trademark on a term that's already been in generic use for a while - and explicitly blessed by the WordPress Foundation. I certainly understand Automattic not liking the fact that they're doing (and paying for) the development work on WordPress while many WordPress users pay WP Engine instead of Automattic/WordPress.com. However, the ship has sailed on claiming that people aren't allowed to use "WP". From where I'm sitting, this feels similar to Elastic, Mongo and other open-source companies disliking it when third parties make money off their open-source code. Of course, WordPress (and Automattic's WordPress.com) wouldn't be the success it is without its open-source nature (just ask Movable Type).

patmcc 2y ago

Trademarks are largely (but not exclusively) about preventing consumer confusion. I can offer a course called "Learn how to use Excel like a pro" and not get sued by MS, as long as I'm not making it seem like I'm Microsoft. Just like DigitalOcean can say "We will rent you an Ubuntu server". We can argue about whether calling something "Wordpress Hosting" or "Hosting a Wordpress site" is different, but I think WP Engine is being perfectly reasonable. "Wordpress Hosting" is as generic as Kleenex and Xerox at this point.

neom 2y ago
I've been thinking about this all week since this WP stuff kicked off. You know what's funny, as far as I know I was the first senior person to have a conversation with Ubuntu about that from the DO side, and as far as I recall it (granted it was a long time ago) it was basically them: "Uhm, you can't do that"- me: "maybe, not sure, but probably better to be friends tho yah?" them: "yah" me: "k" - dunno how it is today, but at least till I left, that was how it remained, always earned a shit load of respect in my book, not sure how it'd have gone for us if they decided to really get nasty, but either way, super grateful they didn't, good job Ubuntu people!!!!