WordPress.org bans WP Engine, blocks it from accessing its resources | TechCrunch
techcrunch.com
WordPress drama went up another notch on Wednesday after WordPress.org banned hosting provider WP Engine from accessing its resources.

The blocked resources in question? Automatic security and features updates and plugin/theme repository access. Matt Mullenweg reasserted his claim that this was a trademark issue. In tandem, WordPress.org updated its Trademark Policy page to forbid WP Engine specifically (way after the Cease & Desist): from “you are free to use [‘WP’] n any way you see fit” to a diatribe:

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://techcrunch.com/2024/09/26/wordpress-vs-wp-engine-drama-explained attempts to provide a full chronology so far.

Edit:

The WordPress Foundation, which owns the trademark, has also filed to trademark “Managed WordPress” and “Hosted WordPress.” Developers and providers are worried that if these trademarks are granted, they could be used against them.

  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    No, it’s not. They’re literally advertising the performance of their altered code.

    You keep parroting nominative use and ignoring that your definition of nominative use is “as the trademark owner uses it”, and that there’s no legitimate reading of any of that material that doesn’t very blatantly imply endorsement, which is always trademark infringement.

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
      11·
      2 months ago

      They’re advertising the speed of their cache, which can easily be just a plugin, and the amount of servers, which well of course is external software that requires no changes to WordPress.

      As for the endorsement part, I’ll just copy what I said above:

      At most, they just ambiguously used “Powered by WordPress Experts” once. I don’t see how the evidence misleads people into thinking there was an endorsement.

      But yeah, the smart way out would’ve been adding a “WP Engine is not associated with WordPress.org”, at least one below the “WP ENGINE®, VELOCITIZE®, TORQUE®, EVERCACHE®, and the cog logo service marks are owned by WPEngine, Inc.” footer. All in the past now, though. At the best both companies are tomfools.

      See, that’s why I don’t like talking about the same thing in multiple threads.

        • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
          11·
          2 months ago

          Sure, a small disclaimer wouldn’t, and a large, prominent, tobacco-style disclaimer wouldn’t get rid of everything but will make a dent. Anything else? Where is the endorsement? Where is the modification?