Exhibit A  🔗 **Source:** [Exhibit A](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/449369966) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [WordPress, trademarks, WP-Engine] > author: James R. Davis II > source: Perkins Coie LLP > reference: [https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/421377811] > date created: 2026-02-16 00:00 > > # 🏷️ Title: Exhibit A > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - Include links cited in or relevant to the article. ## 📝 Summary - Perkins Coie, on behalf of Automattic/WooCommerce, sends a demand letter to WP Engine alleging unauthorized use of the WORDPRESS, WOOCOMMERCE, and WOO trademarks and violations of the WordPress Foundation trademark policy. - It matters because it challenges a major WordPress host’s branding and marketing practices and signals stricter trademark enforcement. - Key stakeholders: Automattic, WooCommerce, WordPress Foundation, WP Engine, WordPress ecosystem (hosts, agencies, users). - Risks/tradeoffs: litigation, damages, rebranding costs, community trust, and precedent for other hosts and WordPress businesses. - Bottom line: Automattic is demanding cessation of unlicensed trademark use, financial compensation (potentially tens of millions annually), and a legal hold, while remaining open to a licensing deal. ## 📖 Main Content - The letter asserts Automattic/WooCommerce’s rights in several incontestable U.S. registrations for WORDPRESS and WOOCOMMERCE, plus exclusive commercial rights from the WordPress Foundation to use/enforce/sublicense WORDPRESS ([rights description](https://read.readwise.io/read/01khh9ztxthyz0tp8qpq5931kj?endLexposition=00000_0000s_00002-0008&startLexposition=00000_0000l&emphasizeText=These+rights+include+the+following+U.S.+incontestable+federal+trademark+registrations)). - It alleges WP Engine builds a $400M+ business on misleading use of WORDPRESS/WOOCOMMERCE/WOO, causing confusion, dilution, tarnishment, and unjust enrichment, citing examples and a consumer survey ([allegations of confusion](https://read.readwise.io/read/01khh9ztxthyz0tp8qpq5931kj?endLexposition=00000_00014_00000-008X&startLexposition=00000_00012&emphasizeText=Unsurprisingly%2C+WP+Engine%27s+infringing+commercial+uses+of+our+Client%27s+trademarks+have+created+consumer+confusion)). - The letter claims WP Engine violated explicit WordCamp US sponsorship terms requiring compliance with the WordPress Foundation trademark policy, especially the prohibition on using “WordPress” in a company/service/domain name ([policy reference](https://read.readwise.io/read/01khh9ztxthyz0tp8qpq5931kj?endLexposition=00000_00018_00002-004J&startLexposition=00000_00016&emphasizeText=WordCamp+US+Sponsorship+Agreement%2C+which+specified+clearly+that+%22any+use+of+the+WordPress+trademarks+is+subject+to+the+WordPress+Trademark+Policy%22)). - Demands include: immediate cessation of unlicensed uses, removal/destruction of infringing marketing, an accounting of profits, payment of compensation (suggesting 8% of revenue as an example), and no future unauthorized use ([action requested](https://read.readwise.io/read/01khh9ztxthyz0tp8qpq5931kj?endLexposition=00000_0001H_0000B_00000-001l&startLexposition=00000_0001A&emphasizeText=even+a+mere+8%25+royalty+on+WP+Engine%27s+%24400%2B+million+in+annual+revenue)). - A legal hold is requested to preserve broad categories of documents, code, marketing materials, and communications to prepare for possible litigation ([legal hold scope](https://read.readwise.io/read/01khh9ztxthyz0tp8qpq5931kj?endLexposition=00000_0001Q_0000D_00000-002V&startLexposition=00000_0001J&emphasizeText=please+immediately+put+into+place+a+legal+hold)). ### 🗒️ Notes - Letter dated September 23, 2024 from Perkins Coie (James R. Davis II) to WP Engine’s counsel, re “Unauthorized Use of WordPress Foundation and WooCommerce, Inc. Intellectual Property.” - Automattic/WooCommerce assert ownership of multiple incontestable U.S. registrations for WORDPRESS and WOOCOMMERCE, plus exclusive commercial WORDPRESS rights from the WordPress Foundation. - Allegation: WP Engine’s marketing uses WORDPRESS/WOOCOMMERCE/WOO in ways that imply authorization, endorsement, or affiliation, misleading consumers and diluting/tarnishing the marks. - The letter contrasts WP Engine’s claimed “40 hours per week” contribution to WordPress with Automattic’s “almost 4000 hours,” framing WP Engine as extracting value from the brand while contributing little. - Evidence cited: examples of site copy and ads (Exhibit B), empirical consumer survey showing “significant” confusion, and numerous third-party references to “WordPress Engine” (Exhibit C). - Specific policy breach: WordCamp US sponsorship terms tied to the WordPress Foundation trademark policy, especially the rule against using WordPress in company/service/domain names. - Harm claimed: confusion, brand tarnishment via negative reviews being imputed to Automattic, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment measured against WP Engine’s $400M+ revenue. - Requested remedies (pre-litigation): stop all unlicensed trademark use, pull/rework marketing, accounting of profits, compensation (illustrative 8% royalty → ~$32M/year), and future abstention from unauthorized uses. - Litigation posture: threatens civil action for injunction, actual damages, disgorgement, costs, and attorneys’ fees based on alleged willful infringement and bad faith. - Legal hold instructions are broad, covering email, documents, calendar entries, audio/visual files, software repositories, websites and metadata, and advertising/social media, across corporate and personal devices. ## 📚 References - WordPress Foundation Trademark Policy: https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ - WP Engine “About Us”: https://wpengine.com/about-us/ - Five for the Future – WP Engine pledge: https://wordpress.org/five-for-the-future/pledge/wp-engine/ - Five for the Future – Automattic pledge: https://wordpress.org/five-for-thefuture/pledge/automattic/ - USPTO: https://www.uspto.gov/ - WIPO Madrid System: https://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/ ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Automattic’s lawyers say WP Engine has built a large business by using “WordPress,” “WooCommerce,” and related marks in ways that wrongly imply endorsement or affiliation, violating trademark rights and WordPress Foundation policies. - They demand that WP Engine immediately stop, clean up its marketing, disclose related profits, pay substantial compensation, and preserve all relevant records while the parties either negotiate a license or head toward litigation. ## 📰 Newsletter WordPress trademark enforcement just became front-page news. Automattic, via Perkins Coie, has sent WP Engine a detailed demand letter over alleged misuse of the WORDPRESS and WOOCOMMERCE marks, including policy breaches tied to WordCamp sponsorships and Five for the Future optics. Hosts, agencies, and plugin authors should revisit their branding, domain choices, and trademark usage against the WordPress Foundation’s policy and official guidelines to avoid similar exposure. ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Clarify public guidance for developers and agencies on compliant use of WORDPRESS/WOOCOMMERCE/WOO in docs, talks, and examples. - Add training modules and office hours on trademark-safe branding for WordPress-related products and services. - Provide sample code, SDK examples, and quickstarts that model compliant naming and attribution. - Publish blog posts and campaigns explaining trademark boundaries and common pitfalls. - Survey community sentiment on the dispute and gather feedback to relay internally. - Coordinate with legal and product teams to keep messaging, docs, and community guidance aligned. #### OSPO - Document clear policies on using third-party marks (WordPress and others) in products, marketing, and repositories. - Ensure license and trademark scanning includes checks for prohibited use of “WordPress” in names and domains. - Integrate security and legal review into release processes where branding changes touch third-party trademarks. - Maintain an inventory of projects/sites that reference WordPress, tagging those needing naming or branding review. - Offer consultation hours for teams unsure about trademark-safe integrations or marketing. - Track upstream trademark policy changes and report on them in OSPO roadmaps and executive briefings. #### Community - Help maintainers review project names, logos, and domains for WordPress-related trademark risks. - Offer contributor-friendly guides on how to describe WordPress integrations without infringing marks. - Provide sponsors with clear expectations about trademark-safe promotion in events and campaigns. - Coordinate cross-project incident simulations around trademark or brand disputes for better preparedness. #### WordPress - Core: keep guidance on acceptable project naming and references to “WordPress” visible in core contributor docs. - Core Performance: ensure benchmarks and marketing around WordPress performance respect trademark usage norms. - Core AI: align any AI branding or product naming that references WordPress with Foundation and Automattic expectations. - **Core Program Team:** sync with events and marketing on sponsor guidelines that reflect the current trademark policy. - Mobile: review app store descriptions and screenshots for trademark compliance. - Playground: ensure playground environments and demos don’t normalize non-compliant naming patterns. - Community: update WordCamp/meetup sponsorship and speaker guidelines around WordPress mark usage. - Training: build lessons explicitly covering WordPress trademark policy and compliant branding. - Marketing: audit messaging across campaigns for correct use of WordPress and WooCommerce marks. - Support: prepare FAQs for users asking about WP Engine/Automattic relationships in light of this dispute. - Design: create recommended patterns for “Powered by WordPress”–style attribution that are policy-compliant. - Documentation: add explicit “Trademark usage” callouts in DevHub/HelpHub. - Photos: review imagery that includes WordPress/WooCommerce logos for context and correct use. - TV: ensure sponsored or branded content respects WordPress trademark guidelines. - Polyglots: localize trademark guidance while keeping legal meaning intact. - Accessibility: ensure policy pages explaining trademarks are readable and easy to navigate. - Meta: keep .org policy pages current and technically reliable under increased traffic. - CLI: verify that example plugin/theme names in tooling do not misuse the WordPress mark. - Hosting: collaborate on a shared checklist for WordPress-related hosts to avoid trademark violations. - Tide: when surfacing data about “WordPress” plugins/themes, use marks in ways consistent with policy. - Openverse: maintain accurate attribution for WordPress/WooCommerce imagery and logos. - Themes: guide authors away from using “WordPress” in theme names or slugs. - Plugins: enforce naming rules in the plugin review pipeline to avoid infringing project names. #### The WPOCC - Develop small-grant programs to help projects rebrand away from non-compliant WordPress usage. - Offer governance and policy clinics on handling upstream trademark constraints. - Pilot transparent funding for initiatives that improve education around WordPress trademark compliance. ### FAIR - Encourage local storage of WordPress-related policy metadata so tools can validate trademark-safe usage offline. - Promote open, transparent documentation of funding and sponsorship arrangements involving WordPress-branded events and properties. - Provide reusable policy artifacts (charters, sponsor agreements) that encode WordPress trademark requirements. ## 🧪 Hypotheses - H1: Aggressive enforcement of WORDPRESS/WOOCOMMERCE marks will reduce consumer confusion about Automattic’s relationship with major hosts. - H2: Clearer public guidance on trademark usage will decrease policy violations among WordPress businesses over time. - H3: Major branding changes at WP Engine would have measurable short-term negative marketing impact but limited long-term customer loss. - H4: Public disputes over WordPress trademarks will temporarily erode community trust in both Automattic and targeted companies. ### 📊 Methodology - H1: Pre/post enforcement consumer surveys measuring perceived affiliation between Automattic and named hosts. - H2: Track incidence of trademark policy violations in WordCamp sponsorships, plugin/theme names, and high-traffic hosts over multiple years. - H3: Analyze WP Engine (or similar) customer churn, traffic, and brand search trends before/after rebranding events. - H4: Community sentiment analysis across forums, Mastodon, X, and Slack before and after major trademark enforcement actions. ### ❓ Questions - How far can Automattic/WordPress Foundation push trademark enforcement before materially harming ecosystem goodwill? - What constitutes “fair use” of WORDPRESS and WOOCOMMERCE in comparative advertising by hosts? - Should WordPress.org’s hosting recommendations or listings be influenced by trademark compliance history? - How can smaller agencies and freelancers get practical trademark guidance without legal budgets? ### 🔮 Future Research - Longitudinal study of how open-source trademark enforcement impacts ecosystem growth and diversity. - Comparative analysis of WordPress versus other open ecosystems (e.g., Kubernetes, Linux) on trademark posture. - Case studies of rebranding forced by trademark conflicts in the WordPress space and their business outcomes. - UX research on how users interpret “managed WordPress hosting” and brand affiliations. ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Hosts, agencies, and product vendors must audit their use of WORDPRESS/WOOCOMMERCE/WOO and likely adjust names, domains, and copy. - Policy: Expect tighter event and sponsorship contracts around trademark compliance, especially for WordCamps and meetups. - Security: Stronger legal holds and documentation practices become more important when marketing and code intertwine. - Education: Training programs need modules on open-source trademark policies as a standard part of WordPress onboarding. - Funding: Sponsors may reassess the risk profile of WordPress-branded initiatives if enforcement becomes more litigious. ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - Reading level: Approx. college/early legal-professional (Flesch-Kincaid Grade ~13–15), due to legal vocabulary and long sentences. #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: USPTO registration excerpts, bullet lists of filing requirements. - Improve: Diagrams of parties/relationships, timelines of trademark filings and alleged violations, flowcharts of compliant vs non-compliant naming. #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: None explicitly (text-only legal letter). - Improve: 2–5 minute audio summary or podcast-style discussion of the dispute; TTS version of the letter. #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Precise legal definitions, formal argumentation, explicit claims about rights and violations. - Improve: Plain-language sidebars, analogies to everyday branding, glossary of key legal terms (infringement, dilution, legal hold). #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: None directly. - Improve: Step-by-step checklist for auditing a site’s trademark use; small exercises to rewrite infringing copy into compliant versions. #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Structured sections (“Our Client’s Rights,” “Violations,” “Action Requested”), causal chains from conduct → confusion → harm. - Improve: Decision trees for when usage is likely infringing; tables comparing compliant vs non-compliant examples. #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Implied community context (WordCamp sponsorships, Five for the Future pledges). - Improve: Discussion prompts for meetups, moderated Q&A with legal experts, case study workshops. #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Dense text suited to careful individual study. - Improve: Reflection prompts (e.g., “How does my own branding intersect with this policy?”), self-check quizzes on policy rules. #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: No environment/sustainability framing. - Improve: Analogies to ecosystem stewardship—how overuse of a shared brand resembles resource depletion, and why governance matters. ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear headings and sections once extracted from PDF; but original PDF may have limited tagging. - Improve: Add proper heading structure, document language metadata, and alt text for any logos. #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Not clearly defined in the PDF itself. - Improve: When presented on the web, ensure logical tab order, skip links, and visible focus indicators. #### Contrast and readability - Present: Typical black text on white background. - Improve: Confirm contrast ratios, increase line spacing and paragraph breaks for long legal sentences. #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: PDF may not reflow well on small screens. - Improve: Provide HTML version that reflows at ≥200% zoom and respects prefers-reduced-motion. #### Media and captions - Present: Static text only. - Improve: Offer captioned video or narrated audio explanation for those who prefer listening. #### Forms and interactions - Present: None. - Improve: N/A, but any future web forms related to policy acknowledgments should have labels and clear error messaging. #### Standards reference - Map needed improvements to WCAG 2.2 AA, especially 1.4.x (contrast), 1.4.10 (reflow), 2.1.x (keyboard), and 3.1.x (readable text). ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Focused on U.S. trademark law and U.S.-based entities. - Improve: Provide guidance relevant to global jurisdictions; translate policy summaries for non-English speakers. #### Inclusive language - Present: Formal, neutral legal tone; no explicit bias. - Improve: Add plain-language summaries, avoid unnecessary jargon where legal precision allows. #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Consistent structure but dense prose. - Improve: More subheadings, shorter paragraphs, icon+text cues in public-facing summaries. #### Representation - Present: Corporate-focused; individuals appear mainly as signatories or CCs. - Improve: Incorporate examples showing impact on different roles (small agencies, freelancers, non-profits). #### Psychological safety - Present: Adversarial legal framing; potentially intimidating for lay readers. - Improve: Complement with community-friendly explainer that clarifies intent and options for compliance. ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Rights → Infringing conduct → Confusion/dilution → Harm → Remedies: the letter follows a standard legal structure, citing registrations and examples. - Use of empirical survey and “actual confusion” examples strengthens the inductive argument that marketplace confusion exists. #### Fallacies - Some rhetoric around “almost zero aspect of WordPress to the world” is likely hyperbolic; it overstates a comparative contribution claim and could be tempered with clearer metrics or sources. #### Tone of voice - Formal, assertive, occasionally accusatory (e.g., “blatant and widespread unlicensed use,” “knowing and willful infringements”), consistent with a litigation-ready demand letter. ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: The letter does not deny wrongdoing by Automattic; it asserts infringement by WP Engine. - Attack: Strongly criticizes WP Engine’s conduct and motives (unjust enrichment, bad faith) but focuses on legal claims rather than personal attacks. - Reverse victim/offender: Automattic positions itself as victim of infringement and unfair competition; it does not portray WP Engine as being wronged by enforcement, so classic DARVO is not evident. ## 🎯 Conclusion Automattic, through Perkins Coie, is formally challenging WP Engine’s use of WordPress- and WooCommerce-related marks, alleging infringement, confusion, and policy breaches, and demanding both behavioral change and substantial compensation under threat of litigation. For anyone operating in the WordPress ecosystem, the practical next step is to review and, if needed, remediate how your own products, domains, and marketing reference WORDPRESS and WOOCOMMERCE against the official trademark policy. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix (append after 🎯 Conclusion) ### 📚 Literature Split Pad - Purpose: Stage Konik CEE units that become per-source Literature notes. - Split level: **H3**. - Include verbatim quotes under 25 words and a [view highlight] link. ### [H1] 5–10-word present-tense claim > [!quote] [Exhibit A](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/421377811) by [[James R. Davis II]] via [[Perkins Coie LLP]]. Published 2024-09-23. Accessed 2026-02-16. > “WP Engine’s unlicensed use of WordPress marks creates significant consumer confusion.” Two lines: context and use. Cite data if relevant. [view highlight](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/421377811#H1) #xref #articleseed ID:rw_[MISSING] ### [H2] 5–10-word present-tense claim > [!quote] [Exhibit A](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/421377811) > “Automattic seeks compensation and an injunction over alleged trademark violations.” Two lines: context and use. [view highlight](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/421377811#H2) #xref ID:rw_[MISSING] --- ### 🔖 Atomic Split Pad (Zettel Candidates) - Purpose: Promote reusable claims into Atomic notes. - Split level: **H4**. - Each item: one idea, present tense, specific, testable. #### [Z1] WordPress mark enforcement reshapes host marketing - Scope/condition in one line. - Pointer to page/time or dataset. - Links: [[WordPress-Trademarks]] [[WP-Engine-Dispute]] #### [Z2] Trademark disputes alter open-source ecosystems - Scope/condition in one line. - Pointer to page/time or dataset. - Links: [[Open-Source-Governance]] [[Brand-Enforcement]] --- ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue (Extract by Selection) - Purpose: Capture quick actions or sparks for Fleeting notes. - Extraction: **Select one line** → “Refactor: Extract selection to new note (content only).” - Keep each line short and self-contained. - [F1] Audit my own WordPress-related branding for trademark compliance — context/https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/421377811 #fleeting #inbox - [F2] Draft explainer on WordPress trademark policy for clients — context/https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/421377811 #fleeting #inbox - [F3] Compare Automattic’s enforcement posture to other OSS foundations — context/https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/421377811 #fleeting #inbox --- <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/Exhibit A.md|Exhibit A by Greg Fuoco]] ## Highlights - WordPress hosting surveys and responses responsive to WPE’s RFP 228. Defendants stated they have been searching for these surveys and responses and will be producing them. However, Defendants refused to give a give a date certain by which they would provide these documents or even an estimate of the same. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqd06508wzapc2pdsbpyp92r))