Two further thoughts on top of the questions raised in the article: 1) On what basis is the plugin’s internal slug being considered trademark-relevant territory? As I understood it, trademarks are to do with assertions being made usually in an advertising context, or anything that would reasonably and naturally be understood as one. It’s far from clear that plugin “slugs” legally fall in this area. 2) The making of a real distinction between “WP X” and “X for WP” also seems either completely arbitrary, or represents a linguistic assertion which is (at least) very debatable relating to the parsing of “WP X”. In ordinary English usage, “The chicken house” and “the house for the chickens” are the same thing. So at least, “WP X” can mean the same as “X for WP”, and the assertion that it is necessarily implies something else is at the least very dubious. As the article says, these determinations need to be made fully in the open via a standard processed, and discussed, if the goal of people having confidence in the processes involved is important.