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...
