Trademark Clash Over “Automatic”

Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com, has raised objections to the use of the word “Automatic” by WordPress developer Kevin Geary in the name of his CSS framework. The dispute stems from concerns that the similarity between “Automatic.css” and “Automattic” could mislead users into thinking the two are connected.

Lawyers representing Automattic, founded by WordPress co-founder Matt Mullenweg, sent a formal letter to Geary, requesting him to rename his framework. The letter stated that the resemblance between the names might lead to confusion among WordPress users and dilute Automattic’s trademark identity.

The situation surprised many within the WordPress community, especially since Geary had previously made efforts to comply with Mullenweg’s requests. Months earlier, following a tweet from Mullenweg, Geary had added a disclaimer in the footer of his website clarifying that Automatic.css was not affiliated with Automattic.

Kevin Geary is a long-standing and well-respected member of the WordPress ecosystem, having been active since 2005. He is currently developing EtchWP, a WordPress page builder that’s still in its early Alpha stage, alongside his CSS framework Automatic.css (ACSS). ACSS has gained popularity for helping developers maintain visual consistency across their websites, and it integrates smoothly with page builders like Bricks, Oxygen, and Gutenberg.

Beyond his development work, Geary has been vocal about his experiences with WordPress’s native Block Editor, known as Gutenberg. In one of his previous YouTube videos and articles, he detailed his frustrations with the workflow, describing it as “inefficient and impractical”. His critiques echoed the views of many developers who feel that Gutenberg still needs refinement before it can fully replace traditional page builders.

In his analysis, Geary even shared that many users remain unsure of what Gutenberg is supposed to be — a page builder or something else entirely. He concluded that the editor in its current form isn’t ideal for beginners or agencies that aim to build custom websites without third-party tools. Despite his criticisms, Geary has always expressed his passion for WordPress and his desire to see the platform evolve positively.

The recent trademark dispute began when Geary publicly shared a copy of Automattic’s legal letter. The message highlighted the company’s ownership of the “Automattic” trademark and expressed concern over the near-identical name “Automatic.css.” The letter explained that the similarity — both in spelling and pronunciation — could cause confusion within the WordPress community, especially given the overlap in audiences.

Automattic’s legal representatives emphasised that their goal was to prevent any misunderstanding that Automatic.css was officially linked to Automattic or endorsed by WordPress.com. They requested that Geary consider rebranding and suggested scheduling a discussion to agree on a timeline for the transition.

Matt Mullenweg himself commented on the issue via X (formerly Twitter), stating that Automattic also “owns” the domain automatic.com — although, in reality, domain names can only be registered rather than owned outright. Mullenweg implied that Geary should have been aware that using “Automatic” was risky territory given Automattic’s established presence.

In response, Geary defended his choice of name, explaining that “AutomaticCSS” was chosen because the framework automates many design functions. He pointed out that “automatic” is a generic term, not an exclusive brand, and questioned the relevance of domain ownership in this context.

The dispute quickly gained traction on social media, with most users siding with Geary. Many argued that “automatic” is too common a word to be monopolised by a single company. Others criticised Automattic for what they perceived as an unnecessary legal overreach against a respected developer who contributes significantly to the community.

However, not everyone agreed with Geary. A few voices suggested he could have avoided the issue by selecting a different name, such as “AutoCSS” or “AutomatedCSS”. These users felt that while Automattic’s reaction might seem excessive, Geary could have foreseen potential confusion by choosing a less similar brand name.

Despite those few dissenting opinions, the majority of the WordPress community expressed frustration over what they called “corporate pettiness”. Several developers commented that the dispute distracts from more important matters, such as improving the WordPress dashboard and enhancing the platform’s usability.

As of now, Geary has not made any public statements about his next steps or whether he intends to rename his framework. Many within the WordPress world are hoping the disagreement will soon settle, allowing both parties to refocus their energy on improving the platform rather than engaging in legal battles.

This dispute serves as a reminder of how branding, even within open-source communities, can spark unexpected tensions. It also highlights the fine balance between protecting intellectual property and fostering collaboration in a shared development space.