this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
270 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
58702 readers
4341 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Like JohnEdwa said, using a trademark to refer to someone else's product is considered nominative fair use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark."
They're very obviously using the trademark in a manner that implies endorsement.
That is absolutely trademark infringement.
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.
IMO, dumb people confuse stuff all the time, like the Minecraft Gamepedia with the Minecraft Wikia back then. The meager amount of evidence presented does not convince me that WP Engine has done any actual harm to the WordPress brand.
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.
They explicitly call their engine Wordpress more than once in those examples. You cannot do that.
Yes they can. It’s actually WordPress, so it’s nominative.
No, they can't, because no, it isn't. That's what trademarks are for. You can't use a trademarked name to refer to your competing product.
Open source projects are generally permissive in terms of people repackaging their code for distribution for different platforms within reasonable guidelines, but even that is a sufficient change that they aren't obligated to allow their trademarks to be used that way.
It is no longer Wordpress once it's modified. That's what trademark is for.
I think we should agree to disagree that it was modified enough here.
There is no "enough". Any modification at all takes their permission to use their trademark.
Most allow you to do so within reasonable guidelines, but that only gives you the benefit of the doubt if it's ambiguous. As soon as they tell you that you don't have permission to use their trademark on your altered version, you can't use it.
But is gatekeeping the configuration files or wrapping around the software really modification?
I can't go and modify something and violate their trademarks in the process lol.
You can't, and I'm disagreeing that what they were doing counts as modification.
Did they change anything? If so, it's modification.
That is the question. I think this is all perfectly achievable by only writing new, separate software to selectively gatekeep the configuration files without changing the source code of WordPress itself. Like I said, not dedicating more resources to WordPress.org doesn't give WP Engine the moral high ground either, though.
To be honest it doesn't really matter if it's modified or an entirely different product offering. It seems it is trying to muddy the waters with the name WP.
IMO that part's entirely fine. After all, it is a webhosting engine for WordPress. Would you say the same about e.g. NameMC.com?