A trademark dispute over MeshCore [LWN.net]

By Daroc Alden
May 29, 2026

MeshCore is a relatively new project, started in January 2025, that aims to build a scalable mesh network using low-power long-distance radios. While many other projects of the same general nature have been tried before, MeshCore grew quickly because of its more efficient message routing and enthusiastic community. In early 2026, an early proponent of the project made a sudden shift that left the rest of the community stunned and embroiled in a trademark dispute.

MeshCore is a MIT-licensed portable C++ library that has been adapted to a range of long-range radio (LoRa) devices. The project also provides a web-based flasher to load pre-made firmware onto supported devices, Home Assistant integration, and bindings for other languages. Unlike Meshtastic (another LoRa mesh-networking project that LWN covered in 2025), it uses an actual distributed routing protocol, rather than relying on a gossip protocol. Unlike Reticulum, it aims to be simple and usable on low-power embedded devices. There are more than 40,000 users all across the world identified by the MeshCore node map, many of whom use the project for reliable radio communication while hiking, to collect data from remote sensors, or simply because they're interested in radio mesh networks.

Many of those enthusiasts found their way to the project via Andy Kirby's YouTube channel. He is (or was) a MeshCore enthusiast who produced engaging videos about the project, encouraging people to try it and explaining what it can do. He also ran the project's web site and a Discord server popular among users of the project, acting as a community organizer and promoter. (The project got a separate, official Discord server in the summer of 2025.) While not a developer, Kirby has certainly contributed to the rapid growth of the project.

In March, he released a proprietary companion app for MeshCore, called MeshOS, that helps with managing devices running MeshCore firmware from a smartphone. It quickly became clear that Kirby was using large language models (LLMs) to work on the app, without disclosing this: he released six new versions with new features in just 15 days. While the MeshCore community is strongly against incorporating LLM-written work (according to a poll the core contributors to the project performed on April 11), it was also upset about the lack of disclosure. MeshCore did accept one LLM-assisted pull request, which included a disclosure of that fact, in early March.

MeshCore's existing app (named, with great creativity, "MeshCore") is developed by Liam Cottle, who is a human. The application is free to use, although it does not appear to be open source. Other open-source software that can communicate with MeshCore devices over Bluetooth exists as well, and the project publishes documentation on how to connect to a device running its firmware. Kirby's application, which provides many of the same features as the official app, requires purchasing a license in order to operate it.

Around the same time, the MeshCore web site that Kirby maintained was updated to make it look as though MeshOS was required to use MeshCore, redirecting links from the official MeshCore application to refer to MeshOS. Options to donate to the MeshCore project or buy a pre-flashed device were removed from the web site's store page, leaving licenses (including ones for MeshOS) the only products one could buy there. Then, on March 29, a law firm working on his behalf filed a trademark application with the UK's Intellectual Property office asserting that Kirby owns the "MeshCore" trademark. That application is still pending at time of writing.

Kirby had not discussed these plans with the core developers ahead of time. The project's developers swiftly created a new web site with a different design to set itself apart from Kirby's web site, and shared a blog post explaining their side of the story. Shortly thereafter, Kirby's web site was updated with a similar design, despite requests from the core team members that he not do that. Today, the two web sites look similar, and it would be fairly easy for a user who was not in the know to become confused about which one is official — although the project's GitHub organization does link to the new web site.

The UK Trade Marks Act of 1994 (as amended) that governs the registration of trademarks in the UK does prohibit, among other things, trademarks likely to deceive the public. It's possible that, given Kirby's split with the rest of the MeshCore community, the UK government will choose to deny his application. But it's far from certain, and is sure to prove a tedious legal process either way. When I reached out to Kirby, he said:

The intention behind the application is to provide clarity and consistency around the platform and the supported ecosystem as it grows.

... which does not really address why he would file an application over the objections of the people contributing code to the project.

While unfortunate, this story is nothing new. There are always people trying to figure out ways to use open-source projects for personal gain. In this case it is not the open-source software being used, but rather the community that has built itself up around that software. The open-source community has had to deal with trademark disputes before, including blatant attempts to make a profit off of an existing community. This has led to complicated systems to protect trademarks, and public conflicts when those systems are challenged.

What may be a bit different in this case is the ease with which a single individual, not supported by a for-profit company, could make a professional-looking web site and companion app to compete with the community versions. It certainly didn't help that Kirby was previously the maintainer of the project's web site, but even had that not been the case he could have registered a similar domain. Previous trademark disputes over open-source software have largely involved direct forks of software, entire companies with legal teams, or attempts to cash in on a tangential association. In the future, we may see more attempts to challenge open-source projects' trademarks more directly, if only because that is now within the reach of individuals.

What the act says

Posted Jun 3, 2026 0:59 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (4 responses)

> It's possible that, given Kirby's split with the rest of the MeshCore community, the UK government will choose to deny his application. But it's far from certain, and is sure to prove a tedious legal process either way.

To (selectively) quote ...

3. Absolute grounds for refusal of registration.

(6) A trade mark shall not be registered if or to the extent that the application is made in bad faith.

5. Relative grounds for refusal of registration.

(3) A trade mark which—
(a) is identical with or similar to an earlier trade mark,
(b) [Omitted]11
shall not be registered if, or to the extent that, the earlier trade mark has a reputation in the United
Kingdom and the use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be
detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

(4) A trade mark shall not be registered if, or to the extent that, its use in the United Kingdom is liable to
be prevented—
(a) by virtue of any rule of law (in particular, the law of passing off) protecting an unregistered
trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade, where the condition in subsection (4A) is
met,
(4A) The condition mentioned in subsection (4)(a) is that the rights to the unregistered trade mark or other
sign were acquired prior to the date of application for registration of the trade mark or date of the priority
claimed for that application.

... end quote ...

So 3(6) is good grounds for the application to be refused, but also good is 5(4)(a). Note in particular here it particularly refers to trademarks (tm) and *not* trademarks(R). So if Kirby is applying for a trademark against the wishes of the project, the application will almost certainly fall foul of this clause. 5(3) appears to be about registered trade marks, but again gives good context for refusing the application.

So if the project files an objection to the registration, given that it is still apparently pending, the trademark office should refuse the application. Given that Kirby appears to be acting in bad faith, appears to be trying to deceive the public (cf his copying the MeshCore website), and the project was well-known before he filed his application, it looks like the trademark office should deny his application on multiple grounds. If the project get in before the application is processed and granted, refusal should be near certain (and not expensive).

Cheers,
Wol

What the act says

Posted Jun 3, 2026 13:03 UTC (Wed) by daroc (editor, #160859) [Link] (3 responses)

Yes, I completely agree with your assessment. I do think that it's possible for rejections to be appealed, however, which is where I would expect the legal tedium to come in. I am not an expert in UK law or in MeshCore beyond what I read to write this article, but I think it's at least plausible that the project will fail to file the appropriate paperwork, or Kirby will contest the claims on their paperwork, and the whole process will proceed from there.

What the act says

Posted Jun 3, 2026 18:28 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (2 responses)

Thing is, in English and Welsh law, it is *normal* for the judge to cut a trial short by hearing part of the evidence and then either issuing summary judgement or holding a trial. If he thinks one fact will settle the issue, he will suspend the rest of the trial and settle that one fact before proceeding any further.

So you probably set out a large chunk of your stall at the outset, but unlike US law you do not have to conduct discovery on everything. You do not have to put all your cards on the table at the start. If Kirby appeals, the project could provide evidence that the project asked him not to copy their site but he did, and ask the judge for summary judgement on the bad faith claim.

They could provide evidence that they were using MeshCore(tm) before Kirby filed for the trademark and ask for summary judgement on the "prior use" claim. (That's probably a simple Wayback-machine issue :-) Oh - and an English judge can conduct his own "expert witness" investigation - he can ask his IT support "what's the wayback machine" and come to his own conclusions.

So if Kirby does appeal a refusal, he will probably find himself facing summary judgement claims against him in an appeal court. And depending on how well the project documents its "request for rejection" there's a good chance the appeal court will refuse to hear him, anyway.

Then there's the problem, if he does appeal, the project will almost certainly file for costs. Okay, they're unlikely to get *all* their expenses back, but Kirby will be facing having to pay the bulk of MeshCore's costs, on top of his own, if he loses.

If the project gets its ducks lined up, Kirby will be the duck in a duck-shoot :-)

Cheers,
Wol

What the act says

Posted Jun 4, 2026 7:41 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] (1 responses)

> If the project gets its ducks lined up, Kirby will be the duck in a duck-shoot :-)

Yet this is I think the biggest risk: that nobody in the project stands up and files the necessary paperwork. Just blogging about it won't win any cases.

Surely there must be at least one UK trademark lawyer out there willing to volunteer a bit of time to file an objection to nip all this in the bud.

What the act says

Posted Jun 4, 2026 13:12 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> Surely there must be at least one UK trademark lawyer out there willing to volunteer a bit of time to file an objection to nip all this in the bud.

Agreed. There must be UK-based people in FSFE?

HOWEVER. We also have "no win no fee" lawyers. Should Kirby be daft enough to sue MeshCore over the trademark, I suspect those guys will be salivating over the prospect of defending the project. They don't even need to be Open Source friendly.

But at the end of the day I get this is a lottery you don't want to play - even if the dice are heavily weighted in your favour :-(

Cheers,
Wol

A trademark dispute over MeshCore

became clear how?

What the act says

What the act says

What the act says

What the act says

What the act says