Automattic accuses rival WordPress outfit WP Engine of ‘false advertising, and deceptive business practices’

FOSS feud re-ignites with massive counter-claim

UPDATED The long battle between Automattic and WP Engine has flared again, this time with accusations the latter company issued “false advertising”, and employed “deceptive business practices.”

This story starts in September 2024, when Matt Mullenwegg, co-creator of the open source CMS WordPress, attacked a company called WP Engine that offers WordPress hosting services. Mullenweg is also CEO of a company called Automattic that also offers WordPress hosting services, and oversees WordPress.org – the home of the open source project that leads development of the CMS.

Mullenweg accused WP Engine of profiting from WordPress without making appropriate contributions to the open source community. Automattic holds the trademarks for “WordPress” and demanded WP Engine pay a license to use it.

WP Engine fought back, and Mullenweg cut off its access to WordPress.org and by making it harder to work with add-ons to the CMS – a considerable inconvenience to users of WordPress running on WP Engine.

Mullenweg’s stance earned him criticism from some in the WordPress community, especially after WordPress.org imposed new rules on user groups that forbade them from accepting sponsorship from WP Engine and limited what volunteers could say on social media.

The two parties went to court, and WP Engine came out on top.

Late last week, Automattic threw some more punches, in the form of a post by Mullenweg and a 162-page counterclaim [PDF].

The post states that “While under private-equity ownership, WP Engine has abused the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks and exploited the goodwill built over decades by Automattic and the WordPress Foundation.”

“Automattic very clearly lays out its allegations about how a high-profile private equity firm made a bad bet and then inflated the value of WP Engine as a way to continue to collect management fees and to obscure their mistake.”

It’s up to a judge – and perhaps the jury Automattic demands hear the case – to decide if the claim is clear. On The Register’s reading, the counterclaim argues that WP Engine often described itself as offering “WordPress” in various forms and entered into negotiations for use of the trademark for the term. Those actions mean WP Engine knew the term had value, but didn’t do a deal to license the trademark.

Automattic further alleges that WP Engine “sought to inflate its valuation and engineer a quick, lucrative exit” after its 2018 acquisition by private equity firm Silver Lake.

“WP Engine slashed costs, eliminated essential features of its WordPress offerings, and degraded product quality, including removing the ability of customers to restore prior versions of posts and pages,” the filing states. “These changes harmed users and eroded public trust in the WordPress name, even though the WordPress Parties had no control over WP Engine’s operations. Consumers became frustrated and confused, with many consumers even seeking technical assistance from Automattic to resolve WP Engine product issues.”

Mullenweg’s company also alleges WP Engine falsely represented the extent of its contributions to the WordPress code base.

Those arguments aren’t new: Mullenweg has used versions of them throughout this dispute. The filing goes to great lengths to explain why previous rulings failed to properly appreciate its logic, and argues WP Engine should be found to have infringed trademarks and competed unfairly, should be subject to an injunction preventing it from using certain trademarks, and pay damages.

The new filing suggests attempts to broker a peace have little prospect of success, and that industrial-strength popcorn machines may be needed by those who intend to watch this matter reach a conclusion ®

Updated at 06:55 UTC, October 28

WP Engine sent the following comment to The Register.

"WP Engine's use of the WordPress trademark to refer to the open-source software is consistent with longstanding industry practice and fair use under settled trademark law, and we will defend against these baseless claims."