The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued final refusals for two WordPress Foundation trademark applications covering "Managed WordPress" and "Hosted WordPress." The foundation has filed Requests for Reconsideration after Final Action.

WordPress Trademark Applications Rejected By USPTO
USPTO examiners issued Final Office actions refusing registration of the marks after ongoing examination. The actions outline issues that must be resolved before registration can proceed. The refusals are reflected in the applications' records in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval system (TSDR).
- Applicant: WordPress Foundation
- Marks: "Managed WordPress" and "Hosted WordPress"
- Action type: Final Office actions refusing registration
- "Hosted WordPress" issues include a disclaimer requirement, identification of goods and services, and domicile information
- For "Managed WordPress," the USPTO requires a disclaimer of the word "Managed"
- Examiners requested clarification on whether "website development software" is downloadable (Class 9) or provided online (Class 42)
- Office actions suggest acceptable identification language drawn from the ID Manual
- Requests for Reconsideration after Final Action have been filed for both applications
What the Reconsideration Means
A Request for Reconsideration asks the USPTO to revisit a Final Office action based on amendments, arguments, or evidence. If refusals are maintained after reconsideration, the applicant can appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
Background Context
- A final Office action follows an earlier nonfinal action when issues remain unresolved
- Disclaimers are required for terms that are merely descriptive of the goods or services
- Identification wording must align with the correct Nice classes - Class 9 often covers downloadable software, while Class 42 covers software provided online
- Applicants must maintain a current domicile address with the USPTO, and foreign-domiciled applicants must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney
- USPTO rules call for clear, nontechnical identification wording, and examiners often propose acceptable language drawn from the ID Manual
For filing and procedural guidance, see the USPTO's Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure and the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).