I do have a right to sell WordPress hosting.
Consider the wording that Red Hat includes in their trademark policy: “Nothing in these Guidelines is meant to limit your rights under the terms of a free and open source software license. Trademarks and copyright are different rights, so regardless of what rights or permissions you may or may not have to use the Red Hat Marks, you always have all your rights under any applicable free and open source software licenses.”
To my point, you also have nominative use to Disney and Microsoft marks. You could have a “Disney VHS repair shop” or a “Microsoft products technical support shop”.
Yet you used those analogies as some kind of clever "gotcha" against my legal argument of nominative fair use.
Do you want to try again? Why do you believe this trademark case is, or isn't, covered by nominative fair use? That's the core of the issue and is WPEngine's stated defence. It certainly seems like WPEngine have a strong argument.
You cannot name products or services “Essential Disney”, “Enterprise Outlook”, “The Volkswagen Experiance”, or “Enterprise WordPress”.
Your allowed nominative use and/or a software license does not give you a license to title your own services with their trademarks. My suggestion would be to read through the Red Hat, Fedora Project, or Mozilla trademark guidelines and/or the Debian-Mozilla dispute article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian–Mozilla_trademark_dispu...
What would you call your Wordpress hosting service if not "WordPress Hosting"? What would you call your Linux Hosting?
>Your allowed nominative use and/or a software license does not give you a license to title your own services with their trademarks.
Citation?
My understanding is that litmus test is whether the naming implies endorsement or "official-ness" of the offering. There is no hard and fast rule like you're claiming. It's all context dependent. So while a court may find that this causes confusion I don't see it as obvious like you seem to.
Your link, while interesting (thanks!) doesn't appear to be a good analogue. Based on my reading of that page:
Debian decided it couldn't use the Firefox logo because it didn't meet their standards for openness (as it was protected by copyright). So they included "Firefox" without the logo. Subsequently, Mozilla complained that they couldn't use the Firefox name without using all the branding in its entirety. And so... Debian rebranded Firefox (and other Mozilla software) to something else.
In other words, it was Debians policy that prevented them from using the logo, not Mozillas. That's not at all the same. And anyways, none of this was tried in court (thankfully) so it wouldn't be a precedent anyways.
