IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D. Colo.: Summary judgment granted in infringement dispute over Baha’i religious services mark, (Mar 19, 2026)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

A religious administrative council established through a prior TTAB decision that it had a legal right to its mark and the defendant’s use of a similar mark was likely to cause consumer confusion.

In a trademark infringement action by the administrative council for the Baha’i Faith against the head of a small Baha’i group regarding the use of its registered mark, a prior decision by the TTAB sustaining the council’s opposition to the defendant’s application to register UHJ for religious services and finding a likelihood of confusion with the council’s mark precluded the defendant from relitigating those issues and entitled the council to judgment on its federal claims, the federal district court in Denver, Colorado has held. Thus, the religious council’s motion for summary judgment was granted (National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is Of the United States v. Chase, No. 1:21-cv-01434-CYC (D. Colo. Mar. 18, 2026)).

Since 1963, the administrative council for the Baha’i Faith, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States (“NSA”), has devoted extensive resources to the continuous use and promotion of the registered mark THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE in the U.S. in connection with goods and services, including providing religious services, religious guidance and counseling, educational services, and related printed matter. In 2005, Neal Chase, President of the Universal House of Justice of Baha’u’llah, on behalf of the Second International Baha’i Council, sought to register UHJ for evangelical and ministerial services. NSA opposed the registration on the ground that, as used in connection with the applicant’s services, the mark so resembled the registered mark THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE, for goods and services including religious services and publications, as to be likely to cause confusion under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act. In August 2019, The TTAB sustained an opposition to the application by the Second International Baha’i Council, having reviewed the DuPont factors and found likelihood of confusion with the registered mark THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE.

Chase uses the marks UHJ and THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE on his website at www.uhj.net, which prominently displays the marks and phrase “The Office Website of the Universal House of Justice.” In 2021, NSA brought claims against Chase for infringement of registered trademarks, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and false advertising, unfair competition and deceptive trade practices in violation of state law, and common law unfair competition. NSA alleges that it owns and is entitled to the exclusive use of the marks THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE and UHJ. Before the court was NSA’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds of collateral estoppel, arguing that, the prior decision of the TTAB was outcome determinative in this case.

Federal infringement and unfair competition claims. In its decision, the TTAB considered the likelihood of confusion between NSA’s registered trademark and the UHJ mark sought by Chase and concluded that confusion was likely. As a result, the TTAB sustained the opposition to the application. The applicant did not seek reconsideration of the TTAB order, did not file an appeal, the order is now final. NSA contended that the priority of its mark and the likelihood of confusion of that mark with Chase’s website were decided by the TTAB and, therefore, collateral estoppel precluded Chase from relitigating those issues in this case.

Chase conceded that he was a party to the TTAB litigation and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in that proceeding but argued that the domain registration for his website was not directly litigated before the TTAB and was not essential to the TTAB’s decision. That argument was rejected as the TTAB made clear that NSA’s dissemination of its marks included dissemination over the Internet. Therefore, Chase’s use www.uhj.net as part of his application for the mark UHJ was previously litigated and essential to the outcome of that matter. The website, as opposed to “UHJ” made no difference as adding the generic suffix.net to the litigated mark UHJ did not change the analysis of the potential confusion caused by the use of a mark, the court noted.

Chase’s contention that collateral estoppel could not be used as part of a summary judgment argument because it was an affirmative defense was also rejected. Since parties could and do invoke collateral estoppel both offensively and defensively, as long as the four elements of issue preclusion were met when the usages adjudicated by the TTAB were materially the same as those before the court, issue preclusion should apply. Since NSA established through the TTAB decision that it had a legal right to the mark and Chase’s use of a similar mark was likely to cause consumer confusion in the marketplace, NSA was entitled to judgment of its federal infringement and unfair competition claims, the court stated.

State law claims. NSA also brought state law claims in its suit against Chase. In its motion, however, NSA did not address the elements of those claims or argue whether the TTAB decision operated to preclude them. Since the first time NSA raised arguments addressing the state law claims was in its reply brief, those arguments were waived and the portion of motion seeking judgment motion on the state law claims was denied, the court concluded.

The Case is No. 1:21-cv-01434-CYC.

Judge: Chung, C.

Attorneys: Ellen Levish (Robins Kaplan LLP) for National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States. Brian Scott Green (Law Office of Brian Green) for Neal Chase.

Cases: Trademark ColoradoNews