Just as an observation this reminds me of the dynamic that other open-source software distributors are tasked with defending.
Let's say you were distributing a browser, let's call it Firefox. You might have a corporation and a nonprofit and call them the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation.
Maybe in this scenario you would allow certain commercial uses of your registered trademarks so that the software could be distributed by others. Parameters in this policy might only allow the commercial use of the trademarks in certain ways, enabling others to advertise their product like "Grammarly for Firefox" or even their service "Download Firefox from CNET" without infringement. But these parameters would go on to disallow one from using the terms in a way that implied a direct connection to the Mozilla Foundation or caused confusion with regards to the root product such as advertising your site, CNET, as "The Firefox Store".
Then let's say someone renamed their CNET site FFXSource. And then advertised themselves as "The Most Trusted Firefox Tech Company" and that their download was "The most trusted Firefox build". They might be told this violated the terms that don't allow implying official connection to the wider project. (And then let's say the download they were offering had the browser History pane feature stripped out.)
In this scenario, it seems it would be the duty of the trademark owner, the Foundation, to seek that FFXSource either come into compliance or, to continue use that exceeded the blanket guidelines, to acquire a dedicated, more-expansive commercial license. (Of course none of my thoughts on this are legal advice.)
> Then let's say someone renamed their CNET site FFXSource.
This is addressed on page 5, where they quote the trademark policy[0], which until a few days ago said: "The abbreviation 'WP' is not covered by the WordPress trademarks and you are free to use it in any way you see fit".
The current policy[1] has since been modified to specifically mention WP Engine and make seemingly irrelevant accusations towards them, but it still retains the part about "WP" not being covered by their trademarks.
> And then advertised themselves as "The Most Trusted Firefox Tech Company" and that their download was "The most trusted Firefox build".
Using that sort of phrasing would clearly be misleading and looks like it would have been disallowed by the trademark policy, but is that what WP Engine actually did?
That is what they did, their actual current advertising includes: "The most trusted WordPress platform", "The Most Trusted WordPress Tech Company", "[WordPress's] #1 managed provider", "WP Engine is the #1 platform for WordPress". They also have service plans on offer explicitly branded by them Core WordPress, Essential WordPress and Enterprise WordPress.
If they are "The most trusted WordPress platform", that implies there is more than one platform. That implies that none of them are first party WordPress. So I don't buy that.
(Regarding their plans, I think they would be safer to put the word 'Plan' at the end of their plan names.)
I know what you mean but if CNET Downloads advertised themselves as “The Most Trusted Source for Firefox” The Mozilla Foundation/Corporation would not allow this. A consumer new to the term WordPress might be given the impression that wpengine.com is a more trusted platform/source for the software than wordpress.org itself.
First, I'm not sure your example comes close to infringing the trademark, but even if it does: Wouldn't the correct step be to inform the infringing party that you see it as infringement and give them a date by shich they have to rebrand, and give it to your lawyer after that? Why would you make threats about destroying their reputation by doing a keynote about them if you are legally in the right? That's just childish.
I don't think any of those issues you raised passes the bar. ffxsource.. no. The most trusted build. no many people build their own and it could be trusted more because someone is testing the official build and making changes and ensuring it works. The most trust Firefox Tech company is accurate. It implies many firefox tech companies exist and they are the best one.
Take a look at Red Hat's guidelines, based on the open-source Model Trademark Guidelines (CC-BY-4.0), for comparison. They advise they consider it acceptable for you to claim "[Your brand] software is built from modified source code derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux." However, without additional permission you cannot "Use the Red Hat Marks in a way that expresses or implies sponsorship or endorsement by, or affiliation or a relationship with Red Hat when one does not exist."
Let's say you were distributing a browser, let's call it Firefox. You might have a corporation and a nonprofit and call them the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation.
Maybe in this scenario you would allow certain commercial uses of your registered trademarks so that the software could be distributed by others. Parameters in this policy might only allow the commercial use of the trademarks in certain ways, enabling others to advertise their product like "Grammarly for Firefox" or even their service "Download Firefox from CNET" without infringement. But these parameters would go on to disallow one from using the terms in a way that implied a direct connection to the Mozilla Foundation or caused confusion with regards to the root product such as advertising your site, CNET, as "The Firefox Store".
Then let's say someone renamed their CNET site FFXSource. And then advertised themselves as "The Most Trusted Firefox Tech Company" and that their download was "The most trusted Firefox build". They might be told this violated the terms that don't allow implying official connection to the wider project. (And then let's say the download they were offering had the browser History pane feature stripped out.)
In this scenario, it seems it would be the duty of the trademark owner, the Foundation, to seek that FFXSource either come into compliance or, to continue use that exceeded the blanket guidelines, to acquire a dedicated, more-expansive commercial license. (Of course none of my thoughts on this are legal advice.)