The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld most of a preliminary injunction in favor of the Libertarian National Committee on Wednesday. The ruling pertains to an ongoing trademark dispute between the LNC and a group of Michigan Libertarians claiming to represent the Libertarian Party of Michigan.
The case arose after two factions within the Libertarian Party of Michigan both claimed to represent the official state party. The LNC recognized the faction led by Andrew Chadderdon and chose to sue the other faction, comprised of Mike Saliba as chair and several other individuals, for its continued use of the party’s trademark on the grounds that it created confusion about the legitimate leadership of the Michigan affiliate.
As detailed in the ruling, members associated with the Saliba faction appealed the injunction, arguing that their use of the trademark was protected by the First Amendment as political speech. However, the court rejected this argument, finding that the Lanham Act, which governs trademark infringement, applied to their use of the LNC’s trademark because it was used in such a way to identify the source of their political activities as being connected to the LNC and not about the LNC. The court ultimately concluded that this use was unauthorized and likely to confuse voters and party members enough to justify a claim.
Defendants’ use of the “Libertarian Party” mark meant that two different entities simultaneously held themselves out as the Libertarian Party of Michigan. A potential voter visiting defendants’ website would not be able to tell if the platforms defendants espoused or events they advertised were actually affiliated with the Libertarian Party. […] Given defendants’ use of the LNC’s exact mark in the provision of competing political services to the same target population, such risk is at play here. And this risk is not hypothetical—the LNC submitted at least some evidence of actual confusion about the sponsorship of competing conventions. This likelihood of confusion is sufficient to support a Lanham Act claim.
While the court upheld most of the injunction, it did make an exception for the portion related to the Saliba faction’s solicitation of online donations. The court found that because the group had included clear disclaimers indicating the ongoing dispute and the proper recipient of donor funds, this specific aspect of their trademark use did not create sufficient confusion to warrant the injunction.
Defendants also used the LNC’s trademark on their website to solicit donations. In connection with the donation tab, defendants displayed one of two pop-up disclaimers notifying the potential donor of the governance dispute, the LNC’s recognition of the Chadderdon-led faction, and that any donations would be going solely to defendants. The disclaimers also included hyperlinks to the Chadderdon-led affiliate’s website. By clearly explaining the identity of the donation recipient, these disclaimers ameliorated the confusion the Lanham Act seeks to prevent. […] Accordingly, defendants’ use of the trademark in connection with their online solicitation of donations, when accompanied by appropriate disclaimers, does not create a sufficient likelihood of confusion as to the recipient of the funds and thus cannot be the predicate for Lanham Act liability.
This is so nuts. The original idea was the LNC franchising state parties and creating relations with independent study groups and correspondent parties abroad. When I was last on LNC things were moving to restoring that focus.
Unsurprising. And I don’t care which side is right or wrong or why. A pox on both/all/any of them.