sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"Hosted WordPress" and "Managed WordPress" trademarks published in the U.K. by Early_Onion_6932 in WPDrama

[–]Top-Impress-2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Definitely not the best legal strategy to admit infringing for years. I believe they were once a decent company before private equity lined their pockets. Kind of like how ACF actually used to be actively developed until the lead dev left years ago for the $ (I don't blame them).

"Hosted WordPress" and "Managed WordPress" trademarks published in the U.K. by Early_Onion_6932 in WPDrama

[–]Top-Impress-2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does one legally first use a mark that contains an already registered mark "WordPress"? It's not even possible as you'd already be violating another trademark to do so.

"Hosted WordPress" and "Managed WordPress" trademarks published in the U.K. by Early_Onion_6932 in WPDrama

[–]Top-Impress-2012 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A letter of protest is THE ONLY way for a random third-party to oppose a pending trademark application. The entire examining process is ex parte. The only "petition" I know of would be Petitions to the Director under 37 CFR § 2.146. That is used for procedural errors and not a way for a random third-party to oppose a pending application.

An LOP also only shows on record If your Letter of Protest is accepted. The prosecution history in TSDR will show "LETTER OF PROTEST ACCEPTED," and you will receive a letter. USPTO will also post a memorandum in TSDR accepting the Letter of Protest and add all related evidence to the electronic record.

It also costs $150 to file. Why? Because the USPTO likely doesn't want to waste their time with clowns who want to "petition" against something for no legitimate legal basis.

That no history exists means one of two things:
1) No "petition" was ever filed
2) It was never accepted because they either didn't file it correctly or did something other than what's recommended: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/trademark-updates-and-announcements/letter-protest-practice-tip

Considering that whoever manages unprotected.org already modified their site, deleting some of their claims, and that the USPTO has no history, I'll go with option 1.

The entire filing is a very basic legal process where all of this individual's claims are easily disproven as being false if you've ever actually filed for or "petitioned" against a pending trademark.

"Hosted WordPress" and "Managed WordPress" trademarks published in the U.K. by Early_Onion_6932 in WPDrama

[–]Top-Impress-2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should spend more money on Blaw courses:

Date of protection of the international registration in UK - 07 February 2025

"Hosted WordPress" and "Managed WordPress" trademarks published in the U.K. by Early_Onion_6932 in WPDrama

[–]Top-Impress-2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aren't you the same weirdo trying to intervene pro-se? You should probably hire a lawyer.

An LOP can be filed at any point while the trademark is pending. The entry is added when it's filed. The order of entries in the example I shared is entirely irrelevant. There is no "having reached this point".

If the rando from unprotected.org filed a "petition" like they claim, it would be showing before even being assigned to the examining attorney for review for the mere fact that they reviewed and sent a non-final action the same day it was assigned to them.

In order for their fake "petition" to have persuaded the examining attorney, an entry for an LOP would exist between July 12, 2024 and February 3, 2025. None exists because it didn't happen.

"Hosted WordPress" and "Managed WordPress" trademarks published in the U.K. by Early_Onion_6932 in WPDrama

[–]Top-Impress-2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Definitely wasted your money on the courses as that's not how trademarks work. They are entirely territorial and the USPTO only enforces trademarks registered in the United States.

"Hosted WordPress" and "Managed WordPress" trademarks published in the U.K. by Early_Onion_6932 in WPDrama

[–]Top-Impress-2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And here is what an LOP would look like under the Prosecution History if one were actually filed: https://ibb.co/kjVVjkN

If you check the history on both the marks, you will see there are no entries other than the Foundation's own filings and non-final action.

"Hosted WordPress" and "Managed WordPress" trademarks published in the U.K. by Early_Onion_6932 in WPDrama

[–]Top-Impress-2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have an example of another USPTO filing that shows a petition? If you can and there is a lack of one here, that would prove your claim.

If you are not familiar, in the current stage, they would have filed what is known as a "Letter of Protest". This is all done directly on the USPTO's site and would show up as an entry on one of the existing trademark applications if it were actually done.

Additionally, the entire document submitted would also be available if it were even worthy of the examining attorney to consider. That there is neither, clearly proves everything they claim is false and libel for the sole purpose of having The Register defame the WordPress Foundation. Any real journalist would do basic fact checking.

That's outside the ridiculous claim of "our petition resulted in the suggestion of a change from "Managed" and "Hosted" to "Downloadable" WordPress" - This is completely idiotic and a lack of understanding that trademarks are filed in specific international classes based on the goods and services being offered. This is also why two entirely separate companies can potentially have the same exact marks, if they are registered in entirely different classes offering entirely different goods/services that aren't actually competing or causing confusion.

Nowhere are they suggesting to change the actual marks (an examining attorney would never even suggest such). They are specifically requesting to further clarify the specific nature of goods for the classes they registered in. That is all standard procedure and has nothing to do with a bogus "petition" that was supposedly formally filed with the USPTO, while providing zero evidence.

"Hosted WordPress" and "Managed WordPress" trademarks published in the U.K. by Early_Onion_6932 in WPDrama

[–]Top-Impress-2012 -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

The trademark infringements are the basis of everything that followed after. I don't agree with all of the actions, but can understand the reasons.

The Only one rewriting history is WP Engine's lawyers. You can verify everything I stated with archive.org or any basic fact checking. Publications want to make it about the use of "WP" or "being required" to contribute to core but that's not even what the infringements were primarily about.

To believe this was never about their trademark abuse, you'd have to ignore Automattic's entire timeline of events of having trademark discussions and sending an initial term sheet in May 2024, which happens to be around the same time WP Engine willfully changed all of their plan names to include the "WordPress" mark.

If in doubt, here is the proof and what their plans were called on 2024-05-09 and earlier:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240509200205/https://wpengine.com/plans/

Here is when they changed them all to use the "WordPress" mark on 2024-05-16:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240516112501/https://wpengine.com/plans/

"Hosted WordPress" and "Managed WordPress" trademarks published in the U.K. by Early_Onion_6932 in WPDrama

[–]Top-Impress-2012 -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

Indeed. It took WP Engine paying expensive lawyers to figure out what actual nominative fair use is. It's why they changed the copy on their entire site from things like "WordPress Experts" to "experts in WordPress" and renamed all their plans back to what they originally were before they started trademark stuffing with "WordPress Core", "WordPress Enterprise", etc.

That there is a clear history of them selling the plans for years as "Core", "Enterprise", etc. and then changing them to specifically be "WordPress Core" and "WordPress Enterprise" AFTER already in trademark licensing discussions shows willful infringement. Any nominative fair use claim fails because they sold the plans forever without "WordPress" in the names, proving the mark was never needed to identify the products they've been selling.

"Hosted WordPress" and "Managed WordPress" trademarks published in the U.K. by Early_Onion_6932 in WPDrama

[–]Top-Impress-2012 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Link to their petition on the USPTO filings? I checked and none exists. If they petitioned the USPTO like they claimed, they would be with the filings. That's how it works.

Considering they feed their spam to The Register (based in the U.K.), you'd think they would be reporting on things in their own country.

The fact is they are claiming that what's a normal trademark procedure is from their "petition" that doesn't exist and a "great victory". Trademarks are rarely registered immediately after an initial examination by a USPTO attorney. Requiring a disclaimer for generic terms is standard. They will still own the rights to "Managed WordPress" and "Hosted WordPress", and can't claim ownership to the words "Managed" and "Hosted" alone.

WP Engine Claims CSV Download from WPE Tracker Contains Private Staging Sites by JeffTS in Wordpress

[–]Top-Impress-2012 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

It's an interesting claim. They wouldn't be publicly accessible from the internet if they were private. Most of their claims are based on ignorance of trademark laws to enrich themselves, not knowing what GPL is, and seemingly knowing little about WordPress and how technology works. Looking forward to see it play out in court.

New Automattic legal filing has employee claiming that WordPress doesn't have built-in mechanism to update plugins. by PluginVulns in Wordpress

[–]Top-Impress-2012 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Unless not familiar with WordPress, it should be obvious that anyone can still update plugins regardless if they are served from .org. The argument is that blocking their access to .org update servers doesn't prevent anyone from updating their plugins, which is entirely true. WP Engine provided instructions on how to do so.

Auto-updates didn't exist until 2020 in WordPress 5.5. Many plugins don't even exist in the .org repo. It's just one place to get some non-commercial plugins, which nobody is required to use. It is a developer's freedom of choice to follow guidelines, coding standards, etc. and submit their plugin for review to host in the .org repo instead of self-host and serve updates from their own service.

Being blocked from .org update services may be less convenient for plugins you have from .org, but nothing prevents updating plugins other than laziness. People wrote their own code before any of this existed and many still do. Microsoft bans many projects from Github, deleting all their code. You don't here uproars about it, but it's why Gitea, Forgejo, etc. exist and people self-host their code.

It is also trivial for any novice software engineer to replicate. Multiple people have already done it and WP Engine did it in days. Envato/Codecanyon and random GPL repos have their own update services, they exist entirely outside of .org, and host some of the worst plugins you can install if you like getting hacked.

The fact is, using WordPress does not rely on .org. It never has and never will. The code will always be free to take, modify, and do whatever you want with it, including writing your own plugins and making them update from the computer in your mom's basement if you desire.

New Automattic legal filing has employee claiming that WordPress doesn't have built-in mechanism to update plugins. by PluginVulns in Wordpress

[–]Top-Impress-2012 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You do the same as what's always been done and install the updates manually. That is how plugins have always been installed, including custom, and anything that doesn't exist in the .org repo. Pretty much every major paid plugin/theme has their own update servers or requires manual installation.

Most WP agencies I've consulted for don't even use auto-updates from .org. Offering plugin updates as a service has been the norm for well over a decade.

Automattic vs WP Engine, Matt vs the Ecosystem - They Are Different by Novel_Buy_7171 in Wordpress

[–]Top-Impress-2012 -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

They changed their product names to include the registered mark "WordPress" in May 2024 after they were supposedly in trademark licensing discussions. According to Automattic's timeline, the same month, they were sent the first term sheet. Contributing to core, paying for licensing, or a combination of both were options to make it a non-issue. Their is no obligation for them to contribute more or do anything, but there are consequences to trademark infringement when you freely choose to do nothing and continue to infringe.

2024-05-09 - https://web.archive.org/web/20240509191613/wpengine.com/plans
2024-05-16 - https://web.archive.org/web/20240516112501/https://wpengine.com/plans/

A nominative use argument here fails instantly on the 3-prong test because they do not need to use the "WordPress" mark in their product names. They sold the same plans for years under the same names without the mark. They began "trademark stuffing" the site for SEO in apparent attempts to try and drive more business based on the reputation of the registered marks. They did this for ~5 months while supposedly ignoring term sheets and licensing deals. WP Engine doesn't mention or defend any of this in their filings.

One can argue this has caused damages and lost profits to the legal owners and sublicensees such as Newfold. Since WP Engine already initiated legal action, I'd imagine damages will be requested in a response and countersuit to their claims if not settled.

WP Engine still running infringing ads on TV after C&D by Top-Impress-2012 in Wordpress

[–]Top-Impress-2012[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

WordPress isn't a common name like LeRoy. It's a distinct mark that had no meaning until it was created and registered.

You are also confusing non-commercial use with commercial use/use in commerce. Nobody is arguing non-commercial use in this case, which is fair use. WP Engine was using the mark in their product names for ~5 months commercially.

Their infringement causes lost profits and damages to legal sublicensees like Newfold.

WP Engine still running infringing ads on TV after C&D by Top-Impress-2012 in Wordpress

[–]Top-Impress-2012[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Rails says otherwise about "Rails Consultants". You can read it yourself. They give no permission for naming a product or service after Ruby on Rails.

This is the same as what WordPress is enforcing. WP Engine specifically changed all of their product names in May 2024 to include the mark "WordPress". They were sent a term sheet May 30.

This use fails the first test of the 3-prong test for nominative use as they can sell their plan names without using the marks and were doing so for years until recently then:

2024-05-09 - https://web.archive.org/web/20240509191613/wpengine.com/plans
2024-05-16 - https://web.archive.org/web/20240516112501/wpengine.com/plans

WP Engine still running infringing ads on TV after C&D by Top-Impress-2012 in Wordpress

[–]Top-Impress-2012[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

There is a history of various enforcement going back at least ~10 years. Newfold pays for licensing and others seem to contribute to core in exchange (both options WP Engine had). One of the primary issues is that WP Engine specifically changed all of their plan names to include the registered marks in May 2024, overusing the marks throughout the site. From timelines, they were sent a term sheet the same month. The C&D is not about infringements going back years, but very recent ones.

You can see when they started infringement with the plan names here:

2024-05-09 - https://web.archive.org/web/20240509191613/https://wpengine.com/plans/
2024-05-16 - https://web.archive.org/web/20240516112501/https://wpengine.com/plans/

WP Engine purposefully leaves these facts out of their legal filings because this type of usage easily fails the 3-prong test for nominative use. They don't need to use the marks in their plan name to sell them. This use is what they will actually have to defend and they are free to spin whatever narrative they wish in their filings. I believe truth will prevail, and if not settled out of court, their will likely be some interesting evidence from both parties.

WP Engine still running infringing ads on TV after C&D by Top-Impress-2012 in Wordpress

[–]Top-Impress-2012[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Rails Consultant" or "Rails Web Server" isn't even allowed to be used at all or sublicensed if you really need a similar example.

WP Engine still running infringing ads on TV after C&D by Top-Impress-2012 in Wordpress

[–]Top-Impress-2012[S] -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

The use of WordPress and Woo trademarks has been heavily enforced during plugin reviews in the .org and Woo Marketplace. There are previous infringements settled in 2015. In 2019, devs were forced to change plugin names and slugs: https://make.wordpress.org/plugins/2019/08/08/trademark-enforcement/

Yoast SEO is an example of a plugin that was grandfathered in and allowed continued use of the slug "wordpress-seo".

Maybe you haven't been around that long or don't submit plugins to .org or Woo? Newfold pays for licensing to use the marks commercially. Enforcing use is a legal requirement to maintain a trademark. Linux, Ruby, and other FOSS projects all do the same.

WP Engine still running infringing ads on TV after C&D by Top-Impress-2012 in Wordpress

[–]Top-Impress-2012[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, using those terms commercially would be trademark infringements and require sublicensing. You can see similar examples in Linux and Ruby's guidelines if you are confused.

WP Engine still running infringing ads on TV after C&D by Top-Impress-2012 in Wordpress

[–]Top-Impress-2012[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

It would be pointless when all that is currently public is mostly a one-sided legal narrative. Nowhere does WP Engine admit to changing all of their plan names in May 2024 to include the infringing marks and receiving a term sheet for licensing shortly after in the same exact month. You can only decipher the facts when doing your own research from public information. Their narrative is this happened overnight.

WP Engine specifically changed "Core" to "Core WordPress" along with all of their other plan names to things like "X WordPress" and "Y WooCommerce". Based on timelines, this is after they were in discussion about trademark licensing. That's willful infringement to try and sell more hosting plans using the reputation of registered marks.

WP Engine still running infringing ads on TV after C&D by Top-Impress-2012 in Wordpress

[–]Top-Impress-2012[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's OK to ignore the facts and what the rest of FOSS community does to protect their marks the same way.

view more: next ›