WP Engine has filed statements of opposition against the WordPress Foundation’s Canadian trademark applications for “Hosted WordPress” and “Managed WordPress,” arguing that the terms are descriptive, commonly used throughout the industry, and should not be registered as trademarks. WP Engine also claims the marks are not distinctive, alleges the applications were filed in bad faith, and challenges the Foundation’s entitlement and proposed use of the trademarks in Canada.
WordPress Foundation has already secured trademarks for the Managed WordPress and Hosted WordPress terms in the UK & Australia, and also in the European Union.
WP Engine outlines its objections to the Canadian trademark applications
The statements of opposition were submitted on June 27, 2026. In the filings, WP Engine opposes both trademark applications on the grounds of bad faith, non-registrability, lack of distinctiveness, non-use and lack of proposed use in Canada, and lack of entitlement to use the trademarks.
On the issue of bad faith, WP Engine alleges that the applications were filed “to facilitate certain direct or indirect false or misleading and unfair competition activities” by the WordPress Foundation and its exclusive licensee.
The filings state that expressions such as “Hosted WordPress” and “Managed WordPress” have been used by numerous companies, including WP Engine, for years to describe services related to websites built using the open-source WordPress software. According to WP Engine, the WordPress Foundation has been aware of this use since at least 2010 without objection.
They further claim that registering the terms as trademarks would enable the WordPress Foundation and its exclusive licensee to restrict others from using descriptive expressions that are commonly used across the industry.
WP Engine also argues that the marks are not registrable because they are “clearly descriptive” of the goods and services covered by the applications. The filings contend that the expressions are commonly used to describe hosting, website management, publishing, developer tools, and related services built on the open-source WordPress software. Alternatively, WP Engine argues that if the goods and services are unrelated to WordPress, the marks would be “deceptively misdescriptive.”
They also argue that the trademarks are not distinctive because the expressions have been used by the WordPress Foundation, WP Engine, and other companies across the industry to describe services related to websites built using the open-source WordPress software, rather than to identify a single commercial source. The filings further contend that any licensed use of the marks would not satisfy the control requirements under Canada’s Trademarks Act, claiming the Foundation “had not and could not have exercised the requisite control over the character or quality” of the licensed goods or services.
The filings also dispute whether the Foundation was using, or intended to use, the trademarks in Canada for the goods and services listed in the applications when they were filed. They argue that the expressions have long been used descriptively by the WordPress Foundation, its alleged licensees, and other service providers, and further claim that offering website hosting, development, and publishing services would be contrary to the WordPress Foundation’s stated purpose, mission, and activities.
WP Engine additionally challenges the Foundation’s entitlement to use the trademarks in Canada, citing the long-standing descriptive use of the expressions throughout the industry. It also alleges that registering the marks could cause confusion with businesses already using the terms descriptively and that their commercial use could constitute a representation that is “false in a material respect and likely to mislead the public” about the character of the goods and services.
The U.S. trademark dispute is currently suspended
The Canadian opposition follows similar proceedings in the United States. In February 2026, WP Engine filed a consolidated notice of opposition before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against the WordPress Foundation’s applications for the same marks, Managed WordPress and Hosted WordPress.
The U.S. filings challenged the applications on four grounds, alleging that the marks are generic, merely descriptive, lacked a bona fide intent to be used in commerce, and that the applications contain false statements amounting to fraud on the USPTO.
The filings also alleges that the WordPress Foundation does not provide managed or hosted WordPress services and argues that offering such services would be inconsistent with its stated charitable mission to “further the mission of the WordPress open source project” and “educate the public about WordPress and related open source software.”
As part of its fraud claim, WP Engine alleges the Foundation was aware of longstanding third-party use of the terms but nevertheless declared that no other parties had the right to use them and filed the applications “with an intent to deceive” the USPTO.
The filing also identifies the ongoing litigation between WP Engine, Automattic, and Matthew Mullenweg as a related proceeding.
In April 2026, the WordPress Foundation asked the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to suspend the proceedings, arguing that the ongoing lawsuit between WP Engine, Automattic, and Matthew Mullenweg in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California involves “nearly identical claims for trademark infringement and defenses of descriptiveness”.
On May 22, 2026, the TTAB granted the motion as conceded, suspending the opposition proceedings until the civil action reaches a final determination.
The WordPress Foundation sought trademark protection for the terms in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The trademark applications in Canada and New Zealand also remain under opposition from WP Engine.