National Rifle Association v. NRA Foundation — D.D.C. Keeps Trademark Claims Alive as NRA Revokes Its Own Foundation’s License

Background

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the NRA Foundation were once closely allied. The Foundation was created in 1990 with the NRA’s involvement, and from the start it used the NRA name, logo, and related marks — with the NRA’s blessing. For decades the two organizations worked together, with the Foundation raising charitable funds that supported NRA programs.

That relationship fell apart amid an internal governance battle. A faction within the NRA sought to remove longtime leadership, and the NRA’s board ultimately concluded the Foundation had aligned with the opposition. In January 2026, the NRA sent the Foundation a cease-and-desist letter demanding it stop using NRA trademarks — including the name “NRA Foundation” and the letters “NRA” in its domain names and communications. When the Foundation refused to comply, the NRA filed suit in federal court in Washington, D.C.

The NRA’s Amended Complaint asserted twelve counts: federal trademark claims, cybersquatting, and a series of claims under D.C. statutory and common law. The Foundation moved to dismiss everything, arguing primarily that the NRA had given irrevocable consent to the Foundation’s use of the marks when it helped create the Foundation decades ago.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Sooknanan granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed Counts VI through XII — the D.C. statutory claims — for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), finding no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over those state-law claims. All other claims survived, including the core trademark counts.

The central issue was the Foundation’s argument that the NRA had given irrevocable consent to use its marks. The Foundation pointed to its Articles of Incorporation — drafted with NRA involvement in 1990 — which named the entity “The NRA Foundation, Inc.” with a “perpetual” duration. The court rejected this argument, drawing a critical distinction: perpetual and irrevocable are not the same thing. As the court explained, “perpetual” simply means the license has no fixed end date and cannot be revoked at will — it does not mean the license can never be terminated for any reason. The NRA’s January 2026 cease-and-desist letter, the court found, plausibly alleges that consent was revoked.

The Foundation also invoked the doctrine of acquiescence — the idea that by allowing the Foundation to use its marks for 35 years, the NRA had implicitly consented to that use and could not now complain. The court refused to resolve this defense at the pleading stage, noting that acquiescence is fact-intensive and not ordinarily susceptible to dismissal before discovery. The court acknowledged the case’s unusual posture — “It is unusual for an organization to bring a trademark infringement claim against an affiliate it created” — but concluded the basic facts were straightforward enough to proceed: the Foundation previously had the NRA’s permission, and now allegedly it does not.

Five trademark-related claims survived: (1) federal trademark infringement under Lanham Act § 1114; (2) false designation of origin and unfair competition under § 1125(a); (3) trademark dilution under § 1125(c); (4) cybersquatting under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) for the Foundation’s registration of “thenrafoundation.org”; and (5) D.C. common-law trademark infringement.

Key Takeaways

• “Perpetual” does not mean “irrevocable.” A trademark license that lasts indefinitely can still be terminated. Organizations relying on long-standing consent arrangements should understand that consent can be revoked — especially when the underlying relationship changes.
• Affiliate trademark arrangements need written agreements. When a parent organization allows an affiliate to use its marks, the terms of that consent — including whether and how it can be ended — should be spelled out explicitly. Silence on revocability is a trap for both sides.
• Acquiescence is a fact question. Even decades of permitted use may not bar a trademark infringement claim, particularly when the relationship between the parties has materially changed. Courts will not resolve acquiescence at the pleading stage.
• Domain names matter. The Foundation’s registration of “thenrafoundation.org” gave rise to a separate cybersquatting claim under the ACPA — a reminder that domain name choices can have independent legal consequences.

Why It Matters

This case sits at the intersection of trademark law and organizational governance — an increasingly common collision as charities, trade associations, and their affiliated foundations navigate disputes over control and identity. The NRA suing its own foundation is a striking example, but the legal principles apply broadly: any parent organization that has allowed a subsidiary or affiliate to use its name and marks could face the same consent-revocation question if the relationship sours.

For trademark practitioners, the court’s clear ruling that “perpetual” license language does not create an irrevocable license is a useful precedent. It reinforces that trademark owners retain meaningful control over their marks even after long periods of permitted use — provided they act when the relationship changes. The case now heads into discovery, where the full scope of the NRA’s original grant of consent will be examined.