Automattic demands rebrand of CSS framework over name similarity

Automattic Inc., the Web-services firm founded by Matt Mullenweg and best-known for its stewardship of the WordPress ecosystem, has issued a trademark complaint to developer Kevin Geary over his CSS framework, Automatic.css. Automattic’s legal team alleges that the use of the term “Automatic” is confusingly similar to “Automattic,” and requests that Geary rebrand his product.

The dispute

In a letter dated October 30, 2025, Automattic’s attorneys wrote to Geary stating:

“Our client owns many trademark registrations for its Automattic mark … We are writing about your use of the name and mark Automatic (sometimes with a CSS or .CSS suffix) to provide a CSS framework specifically designed for WordPress page builders. … Automattic and Automatic differ by only one letter, are phonetically identical, and are marketed to many of the same people.”

The letter asked Geary to negotiate a “mutually agreeable transition timeline” for changing his product’s name.

Geary made the letter publicly available via social channels, and responded by pointing out the descriptive nature of the word “Automatic” in his branding.

Background: parties and context

Automattic Inc., founded in 2005 by Matt Mullenweg, is a distributed company whose products include WordPress.com, WooCommerce and others. Automattic has a history of trademark enforcement involving its brands and the WordPress ecosystem.

Kevin Geary is a long-time WordPress developer (active since circa 2005), and creator of Automatic.css, a CSS framework designed for WordPress themes and page builders such as Gutenberg, Bricks and Oxygen. Geary has also publicly criticised aspects of WordPress’s native block-editor workflow.

Trademark law and branding implications

Trademark disputes in software typically hinge on whether two marks are sufficiently similar and whether they operate in the same or confusingly overlapping markets. Automattic argues both: the names “Automatic” and “Automattic” sound alike, and the products address the WordPress theme-design/development ecosystem.

For Geary, the question is whether his use of the term “Automatic” is descriptive of functionality (thereby reducing the distinctiveness of the mark) and whether the potential for consumer confusion is real. Some in the community argue that a generic English term like “automatic” is difficult to monopolise.

Trademark owners often must enforce their marks or risk dilution or abandonment. Automattic’s letter suggests they are treating the case as an enforcement necessity.

Community reaction and possible consequences

The dispute has stirred notable commentary within the WordPress developer community. Supportive messages toward Geary’s position have been posted online, raising broader questions about naming freedom, open-source dynamics and brand dominance.

If Geary opts to rebrand, he will face the operational costs of changing the product name, updating documentation, marketing materials, and potentially moving domain names or sub-brands. On the other hand, if he resists, the dispute could escalate into formal trademark proceedings — which could be costly and time-consuming for a single-developer project.

For Automattic, even if Geary’s project is small, failing to act could weaken their claim to the “Automattic” mark, particularly if many third-party tools adopt similar names in the same ecosystem.

Why it matters

While this battle may appear niche, it touches on broader themes relevant to the open-web community and software branding:

• Control of naming in open-source ecosystems: Platforms like WordPress rely on a broad array of third-party tools; the balance between ecosystem openness and brand protection can be delicate.
• Trademark enforcement in software markets: The case highlights how even generic-seeming terms may attract enforcement efforts if used in proximate markets.
• Developer-community sentiment: When enforcement is perceived as heavy-handed, it can generate reputational friction within technical communities that value freedom and open collaboration.

Looking ahead

At present, Geary has not publicly revealed whether he will comply with the rebranding demand or contest it. If a path to negotiation is found, the transition timeline and brand-migration plan that Automattic’s legal team mentioned may become public. If not, the matter could escalate into a more formal trademark dispute, involving filings, oppositions or settlements.

Given the prominence of WordPress (which powers a substantial share of websites globally) and Automattic’s influence in its ecosystem, the outcome may set precedents or influence naming choices for tooling developers going forward.