Full disclosure: Matt Mullenweg is my friend, and I’m totally owning up to my bias here. But sometimes your friend needs defending, especially when they’re getting blamed for something that was completely avoidable.
So let’s talk about AutomaticCSS and why this whole situation was ridiculous from the start.
The Basic Facts
Kevin Geary launched a CSS framework for WordPress called Automatic.css in 2021.
Let me repeat that: a product specifically built for WordPress – named almost identically to the biggest company in WordPress.
There’s a company called Automattic – founded by Matt Mullenweg (who co-founded WordPress) – that’s been THE major player in the WordPress ecosystem since 2005.
Eventually, Matt/Automattic sent a polite letter.
Kevin posted it online and complained that Matt was being a villain.
Here’s my take: Matt isn’t a dick. Kevin was a moron for naming it that in the first place.
What Were You Thinking?
Seriously, what was the thought process here?
You’re launching a WordPress product. Not just any product – a product specifically built for WordPress developers and agencies. THE biggest company in WordPress is called Automattic. And you decide to name your product… Automatic?
That’s not creative. That’s not clever. That’s not even “descriptive naming.”
That’s just dumb.
Look, I get it – “automatic” is a common English word. Nobody can trademark the word “automatic” itself. But here’s the thing: just because you legally CAN doesn’t mean you SHOULD.
Imagine if someone launched a CSS framework called “ElementCSS” when Elementor (a page builder) dominates WordPress. Or a page builder called “GravityBuilder” when Gravity Forms (a forms plugin) has been around for years. These are all generic, common words combined with descriptive terms – and none of these hypothetical products compete directly with the established ones – but in the WordPress ecosystem, using those names would be idiotic because everyone would immediately associate them with the existing brands and assume there’s a connection.
With Automatic.css, it’s even worse – it’s a CSS framework built specifically for WordPress, in the same ecosystem as Automattic, targeting the same developers and agencies.
This isn’t some obscure trademark conflict where you need a lawyer to explain why there’s a problem. A five-year-old could tell you this was a bad naming choice.
The etch Test
Kevin runs another company called etch.
Now imagine I launch a WordPress plugin tomorrow called EtchPress or Etch Builder or Etch Themes – all products specifically built for WordPress.
Kevin would lose his mind. He’d send me a letter so fast my head would spin. And you know what? He’d be completely right to do so.
That’s his brand. I’d be stepping all over it in his own ecosystem. It would be a stupid, disrespectful naming choice.
So if Kevin would protect his brand from someone building WordPress products with nearly identical names, why is he surprised when Matt does the exact same thing?
Oh right—because when it’s YOUR brand, it matters. When it’s someone else’s, suddenly they’re the villain.
Matt Isn’t the Villain Here
Let’s be clear about what Matt/Automattic actually did:
- They sent a polite letter (not a lawsuit)
- They kept it private initially (not public shaming)
- They asked for something completely reasonable
That’s it. That’s the whole “villainous” act.
Meanwhile, Kevin:
- Chose a name one letter away from Automattic for a WordPress product
- Got surprised when it became an issue
- Posted the letter publicly to play the victim
- Painted Matt as the bad guy for… protecting his trademark?
Who’s actually being unreasonable here?
Stop Tearing Matt Down
I’m writing this because I’m tired of watching people pile on Matt for doing completely normal, reasonable things.
Does he make controversial decisions? Sure. Is he perfect? No.
But when he sends a polite letter saying “hey, your product name is basically identical to ours, could you reconsider?”—that’s not villainy. That’s basic brand protection.
And frankly, anyone who thinks that’s unreasonable is either:
- Being deliberately obtuse
- Looking for reasons to hate on Matt
- A moron who doesn’t understand how naming works
The Core Message: Don’t Be a Dick
This whole situation could have been avoided if Kevin had just:
- Named it literally anything else when launching
- Acknowledged the obvious when he got the letter
- Rebranded quietly instead of making a public stink
At every step, there was a “don’t be a dick” option available.
Kevin didn’t take any of them.
Matt, meanwhile, handled it exactly right. Professional. Private. Polite. Reasonable.
The Bottom Line
Yes, I’m biased. Matt is my friend. But that doesn’t make me wrong.
The naming was stupid. Full stop. You don’t name your WordPress product almost identically to the biggest WordPress company. That’s not clever—it’s either lazy or opportunistic, and either way, it’s dumb.
Matt was right to send the letter. Not mean. Not a bully. Just protecting a brand he’s built over 20 years.
Kevin was wrong to play the victim. He created the problem. He got asked politely to fix it. Making it a public drama was unnecessary and unfair.
Sometimes defending your friend means calling out obvious bullshit. This is obvious bullshit.
Matt isn’t a dick. Kevin made a dumb naming choice and then made it worse by complaining about the predictable consequences.
That’s the whole story.