IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D.D.C.: NRA’s trademark claims against former affiliate largely survive dismissal challenge, (Jun 26, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The former affiliate failed to establish that the NRA’s consent to use its trademarks was irrevocable.

The District of Columbia federal court has denied in substantial part a motion to dismiss filed by The NRA Foundation (Foundation), allowing trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, cybersquatting, and related common-law trademark claims brought by the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) to proceed. The court held that the complaint plausibly alleged that the NRA had revoked any prior consent allowing the Foundation to use its trademarks and that the Foundation failed to establish that its authorization was irrevocable. The court, however, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NRA’s non-trademark District of Columbia law claims, dismissing them without prejudice because they substantially predominated over the federal trademark dispute and presented novel issues of local law (National Rifle Association Of America v. NRA Foundation, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00015-SLS (D.D.C. Jun. 24, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), is a nonprofit organization that advocates for Second Amendment rights and conducts firearm education, training, publications, and charitable activities. The defendant, the NRA Foundation, is a nonprofit charitable organization that the NRA incorporated in 1990 to support its charitable, educational, and scientific programs through tax-deductible fundraising. The organizations worked closely for more than three decades, with the Foundation raising funds that supported the NRA's charitable activities.

The NRA alleged infringement of several registered trademarks, including NRA for educational, publication, association, charitable fundraising services, and various goods; THE NRA FOUNDATION TEACH FREEDOM for charitable fundraising services; and FRIENDS OF NRA for charitable fundraising services. It also asserted common-law rights in THE NRA FOUNDATION, claiming continuous use of that mark since 1990. In addition, the dispute involved the NRA's nrafoundation.org domain name and the Foundation's thenrafoundation.org domain name, which the NRA alleged was confusingly similar and used to conduct competing fundraising activities.

The NRA alleged that after governance changes in both organizations, the Foundation amended its governing documents to reduce the NRA's influence and hired its own executive director. It further alleged that the Foundation planned to conduct independent fundraising, sought donor lists and social media accounts from the NRA, and announced that it would substantially reduce funding for the NRA's charitable activities. According to the complaint, those actions transformed the Foundation from an affiliated charity into a competing organization while it continued using NRA trademarks. The NRA filed suit in January 2026, asserting federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, cybersquatting, common-law trademark infringement, and several District of Columbia law claims. On the same day, it sent the Foundation a cease-and-desist letter stating that it revoked any prior license, consent, or authorization to use NRA trademarks. The Foundation moved to dismiss.

Supplemental jurisdiction. The court first determined which claims properly belonged in federal court. It concluded that the District of Columbia common-law trademark infringement claim shared the same operative facts as the federal trademark claims because each challenged the Foundation's continued use of the NRA's marks. However, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining District of Columbia law claims, finding they involved broader disputes concerning charitable trusts, nonprofit governance, contracts, and corporate control that substantially predominated over the trademark issues. The court further concluded that several of those claims presented novel questions of District of Columbia law more appropriately resolved by local courts.

Trademark claims. Addressing the remaining claims, the court explained that trademark infringement under the Lanham Act requires ownership of a valid mark and a likelihood of consumer confusion. Citing American Society for Testing & Materials v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 896 F.3d 437 (D.C. Cir. 2018), it noted that those elements governed the federal infringement claims, while District of Columbia common-law trademark infringement followed the same standard.

Revocation of consent. The Foundation did not dispute that the NRA originally consented to its use of NRA trademarks. Instead, it argued that the consent became perpetual and irrevocable because the NRA created the Foundation, approved its corporate name, and provided for perpetual corporate existence in the Foundation's articles of incorporation. The court rejected those arguments at the pleading stage. It held that the January 2026 cease-and-desist letter plausibly alleged revocation of any prior consent by expressly demanding that the Foundation immediately stop using all NRA trademarks. Accepting the complaint's allegations as true, the court concluded that the NRA adequately pleaded unauthorized use after revocation.

The court further concluded that the Foundation failed to establish any irrevocable trademark license. It observed that trademark licensors generally must retain the ability to terminate a license to satisfy their obligation to control the quality associated with their marks. The Foundation's articles of incorporation, while providing for perpetual corporate existence, did not compel the conclusion that any trademark license was likewise irrevocable. The court also declined to dismiss the action based on the equitable defense of acquiescence, concluding that the record did not conclusively establish its elements at the pleading stage. In rejecting the Foundation's reliance on NAACP v. N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense & Educational Fund, 753 F.2d 131 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the court explained that any equitable defenses would require factual development through discovery.

The court acknowledged that it was unusual for an organization to bring trademark claims against an affiliate that it had created. Nevertheless, it held that discovery might clarify the scope of the NRA's original consent and any defenses available to the Foundation. At the pleading stage, however, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the Foundation continued using NRA trademarks after the NRA revoked its authorization. The court therefore denied the Foundation's motion to dismiss the trademark-related claims while dismissing Counts VI through XII without prejudice.

The Case is No. 1:26-cv-00015-SLS.

Judge: Sooknanan, S.

Attorneys: Mark Wendell Delaquil (Baker & Hostetler, LLP) for National Rifle Association of America. Mary Elizabeth Gately (DLA Piper LLP) for NRA Foundation.

Companies: National Rifle Association of America; NRA Foundation

Cases: Trademark DistrictofColumbiaNews