Automattic files counterclaims in WP Engine trademark dispute

Automattic filed comprehensive counterclaims on October 23, 2025, against WP Engine in an escalating legal battle centered on WordPress trademark violations and alleged exploitation of the open-source ecosystem. The 162-page filing with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:24-cv-06917-AMO) represents the latest development in a conflict that began publicly in September 2024.

According to the counterclaims, the WordPress Parties—comprising Automattic Inc., Matthew Mullenweg, WordPress Foundation, and WooCommerce Inc.—allege WP Engine engaged in "deliberate misappropriation of WordPress-related trademarks" following Silver Lake Technology Management's 2018 acquisition of a controlling interest in the hosting company. The document details how WP Engine allegedly "sought to inflate its valuation and engineer a quick, lucrative exit" through what counterclaimants characterize as systematic trademark infringement.

The filing describes how Matthew Mullenweg co-developed WordPress more than twenty years ago as an open-source publishing platform. The ecosystem evolved under his leadership into what the filing characterizes as "a balanced structure" where WordPress Foundation protects the software's freedom, Automattic provides commercial services, and WooCommerce offers open-source extensions.

WP Engine entered the WordPress ecosystem in 2010 as "a small hosting provider making largely nominative uses of the WordPress Parties' trademarks," the filing states. The relationship deteriorated significantly after Silver Lake's investment. According to the counterclaims, following Silver Lake's realization that it "could not reap a windfall on its $250 million investment," WP Engine began what counterclaimants describe as abandoning fair use principles.

The filing alleges that by the early 2020s, WP Engine had anointed itself as "The WordPress Technology Company" and allowed partners to refer to it as "WordPress Engine." Products labeled "Core WordPress" and "Headless WordPress" emerged during this period. WP Engine allegedly promoted itself as a WordPress ecosystem steward while "bragging to consumers that it had committed 5% of its resources to support the WordPress project—a promise it never kept."

These actions were "not isolated branding choices but a coordinated scheme to misappropriate the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks, mislead consumers, and inflate WP Engine's valuation for an anticipated sale," according to the document. Simultaneously, the filing alleges, WP Engine "slashed costs, eliminated essential features of its WordPress offerings, and degraded product quality."

Consumer confusion resulted from these changes, according to the counterclaims. The filing states that consumers became "frustrated and confused, with many consumers even seeking technical assistance from Automattic to resolve WP Engine product issues."

The document describes how Mullenweg and Automattic sought resolution through "good-faith discussions and a fair trademark license." WP Engine allegedly "pretended to engage in licensing discussions, but actually delayed and negotiated in bad faith, knowing that paying licensing fees would impact its earnings, and, in turn, its valuation and Silver Lake's expected return."

By 2024, Silver Lake's strategy was allegedly failing. The filing claims that "despite retaining bankers and running a sales process," WP Engine failed to attract buyers willing to meet its valuation. On information and belief, the document states, Silver Lake sought more than $2 billion—including through overtures to Automattic—but no buyer valued WP Engine near that amount. Discovery will allegedly show that "WP Engine was failing due to internal mismanagement and reckless cost-cutting."

In September 2024, after months of fruitless discussions, Mullenweg gave WP Engine and Silver Lake a choice, according to the filing. Reach a fair resolution by either paying a license fee or contributing 8% of revenue to WordPress core development. This ultimatum came shortly before Mullenweg's September 20, 2024 keynote address at WordCamp US in Portland, where he publicly criticized WP Engine for allegedly not contributing enough to the WordPress open-source project.

The filing details seven counterclaims against WP Engine. Federal trademark infringement claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) form the foundation. According to the document, counterclaimants own and enjoy "exclusive rights to use the WordPress Marks and WooCommerce Marks in commerce in connection with various goods and services." The filing alleges WP Engine's knowing and willful use of these marks in connection with website creation, design, and management services "without authorization from Counterclaimants, is likely to cause confusion and mistake and to deceive consumers."

False designation of origin claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) follow similar reasoning. The document states that "consumers seeing WP Engine's services offered under the WordPress and WooCommerce Marks are likely to believe those services are sponsored by, associated with, or otherwise affiliated with Counterclaimants, when they are not."

Federal trademark dilution claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) assert that the WordPress and WooCommerce marks are "famous and distinctive marks" with "widespread recognition and an association of high quality in the minds of the general consuming public." WP Engine's alleged unauthorized use "is diluting the distinctive quality of the WordPress and WooCommerce Marks by blurring the public's association of the marks."

Common law trademark infringement forms the fourth counterclaim. California statutory claims include trademark dilution under California Business & Professions Code § 14247, unfair competition under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and common law unfair competition.

Each claim seeks extensive remedies. The filing requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining WP Engine from using WordPress and WooCommerce marks "or any other mark which so resembles those trademarks as to be likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake." The document seeks orders preventing WP Engine from "committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that WP Engine's goods or services are sold under the control or supervision of Counterclaimants."

Financial remedies include an accounting of WP Engine's profits "realized by reason of WP Engine's unlawful and willful acts." Actual damages "in an amount to be proven at trial" are sought, with the amount potentially increased "by a sum not exceeding three times the amount thereof as provided by law." Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all sums is requested.

The filing asks the court to declare this an exceptional case and award attorneys' fees and costs. Punitive damages "in an amount to be determined at trial" are sought based on allegations that WP Engine "has acted willfully, maliciously, oppressively, and fraudulently."

A jury trial is demanded on all issues so triable. The document was filed by Joseph R. Rose of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, along with multiple attorneys from the firm's San Francisco, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, and New York offices.

The case builds on events that unfolded rapidly starting September 2024. Following Mullenweg's WordCamp US criticism, both companies exchanged cease-and-desist letters on September 23, 2024. Mullenweg announced on September 25, 2024 that WP Engine had been banned from WordPress.org resources.

WP Engine filed its initial lawsuit on October 2, 2024, with subsequent motions for injunctive relief. In December 2024, a federal judge ordered restoration of WP Engine's WordPress.org access. The conflict caused significant disruption, including 159 employees leaving Automattic through a voluntary buyout program in October 2024.

The dispute has already passed through multiple court rulings. In September 2025, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín dismissed several of WP Engine's most serious claims against Automattic and Mullenweg, including antitrust violations and extortion charges. However, claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California's Unfair Competition Law remain active.

The legal battle unfolds as WordPress powers more than 40% of websites globally. The outcome could significantly impact how commercial entities interact with open-source projects and the boundaries of fair use in trademark law.

For the marketing community, the case highlights risks when major platforms that agencies rely on face prolonged legal disputes. The conflict has disrupted access to essential WordPress tools and resources that marketing teams use for client websites and campaigns. Similar trademark disputes have affected other WordPress companies, demonstrating the broader implications for businesses built within the WordPress ecosystem.

The case exposes fundamental tensions about who controls WordPress trademarks and how they can be used commercially. These questions matter for thousands of companies and millions of websites that depend on the WordPress platform for their digital presence and marketing operations.

Timeline

• September 20, 2024: Matt Mullenweg criticizes WP Engine during WordCamp US keynote speech
• September 23, 2024: Both companies exchange threatening legal letters over trademark disputes
• September 25, 2024: Mullenweg blocks WP Engine access to WordPress.org resources
• October 2, 2024: WP Engine files federal lawsuit against Automattic and Mullenweg
• October 5, 2024: Automattic offers buyout package, 159 employees leave company
• October 18, 2024: WP Engine requests emergency court orders to stop alleged harassment
• December 13, 2024: Federal judge orders restoration of WP Engine's WordPress access
• September 12, 2025: Court dismisses major antitrust and extortion claims but allows other accusations to continue
• October 23, 2025: Automattic files comprehensive counterclaims against WP Engine

Summary

Who: Automattic Inc., Matthew Mullenweg, WordPress Foundation, and WooCommerce Inc. (counterclaimants) filed against WP Engine Inc. (counterdefendant). Silver Lake Technology Management controls WP Engine following its 2018 acquisition.

What: Comprehensive counterclaims alleging seven causes of action including federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, federal trademark dilution, common law trademark infringement, California trademark dilution, unfair competition under California law, and common law unfair competition. The filing seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, actual damages potentially trebled, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages.

When: Filed October 23, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:24-cv-06917-AMO). The dispute traces back to Silver Lake's 2018 acquisition of WP Engine, with public conflict erupting in September 2024.

Where: Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The case impacts the global WordPress ecosystem, which powers more than 40% of websites worldwide and affects marketing teams and businesses operating within the platform.

Why: Counterclaimants allege WP Engine systematically misappropriated WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks following Silver Lake's acquisition to inflate valuation for a profitable exit. The filing claims WP Engine abandoned fair use, branded itself as "The WordPress Technology Company," and created consumer confusion while failing to contribute promised resources to WordPress development. Automattic states this action aims to protect the open-source ecosystem and end alleged trademark abuses.