More of a critique than anything, but I know the WPF has been fairly militant about their enforcement of the WordPress trademark, so I'm assuming that the URL for the forthcoming WordPress-focused site is likely to draw their ire.

A question, you say? Uhh, perhaps this: what shall be done in the event of a TM fight?

share|improve this question
    
There seem to be plenty of sites that incorporate WordPress into their names. For example wptavern.com is still around; even though, it's called WordPress Tavern. –  Peter Ajtai Aug 11 '10 at 20:25
add comment

1 Answer

It's only a trademark violation if the site is pretending to be sanctioned/affiliated/owned by the company. For example, we have the same issue the the up-and-coming Apple proposal.

So we have two choices:

  1. ask the company for permission
  2. make it clear we are not owned or affiliated by the company.

#2 is better because Apple would never give you permission.

You just have to do the whole "Apple is a trademark of Apple Computer Company, etc. This site is not affiliated or endorsed by Apple."

AND make sure you do not intend to confuse the public in any way (meaning, no logos, color styles, etc that could be confusing to a normal person).

Of course, I am not a lawyer, and Wordpress lawyers may disagree, but it's clear that they can't stop you from "talking about Wordpress" provided you are not pretending that you are Wordpress. Trademark on a term doesn't mean suppression of speech of that term.

share|improve this answer
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .