3 ms·

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 mea

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...

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...