IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—W.D. Pa.: Preliminary injunction denied for Lanham Act claims against political group, (Sep 17, 2025)

By Jonathan Anderson

The court found the case lacks the commercial elements necessary for federal trademark and cybersquatting claims.

The federal district court in Pennsylvania has declined to issue a preliminary injunction against a political advocacy organization over its use of a web domain and logo. The court concluded that the plaintiff, a competing political group, could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits for claims of federal trademark infringement and cybersquatting under the Lanham Act. The court reasoned that the claims require a commercial element that is not present in the case, given that the parties are political advocacy organizations, and the allegations do not involve commercial activity. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims (Better Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association, No. 2:25-cv-00931-WSS (W.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 2025)).

Background. Plaintiff, Better Pennsylvania Inc., is a non-profit political advocacy organization that maintains a website at betterforpennsylvania.org, which displays a logo with the text BETTER PA. Defendant, Pennsylvania Manufacturing Association (PMA), is a non-profit advocacy organization that takes different and competing positions on certain issues compared to Better Pennsylvania. PMA maintains a website at betterpa.org, which displays a logo that includes the text MAKING PA BETTER. The two websites have similar layouts and photographs.

Better Pennsylvania filed suit against PMA in the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking to enjoin PMA’s continued use of the web domain betterpa.org and the MAKING PA BETTER logo. The complaint alleged three causes of action: trademark infringement of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), cybersquatting in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition under Pennsylvania law.

Following a hearing, the court declined to grant injunctive relief, concluding that Better Pennsylvania cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the federal claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state claims.

Trademark infringement. First, the court found that Better Pennsylvania failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of count one, which alleged trademark infringement of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute limits the cause of action to commercial representations in connection with goods and/or services. However, neither Better Pennsylvania nor PMA are engaged in commercial activities. PMA’s allegedly infringing website does not offer or refer to any goods or services for sale. Both parties’ websites offer advocacy and different viewpoints on issues. Such non-commercial conduct is not covered by the Lanham Act, the court said.

Cybersquatting. Second, the court found that Better Pennsylvania further failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of count two, which alleged cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). Here again, the court reasoned that the plain language of the statute requires a commercial element that is not present in the case. The court said there was nothing in the record showing that PMA made a profit from the use of the domain name at issue. Both websites offer only advocacy and do not offer or refer to goods or services.

State law claims. Third, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania state law claims of common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The court cited concerns for judicial efficiency and to encourage comity between federal and state systems.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-00931-WSS.

Judge: Stickman, W.

Attorneys: Marco S. Attisano (Law Office of Marco S. Attisano) for Better Pennsylvania, Inc. Margaret C. Gleason (Jones Day) for Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association.

Companies: Better Pennsylvania, Inc.

Cases: TechnologyInternet Trademark PennsylvaniaNews