≡ Menu

Libertarian Party Trademark Assertions and Enforcement

by on October 2, 2025

Related:

Update: From recent messages on the LNC Public List, e.g.:

here:

I give notice for a motion to initiate litigation as directed by the LNC” … “The motion adopted unanimously by the LNC was “Direct the chair or his designee/s to prepare a proposal for initiation of trademark litigation, and potentially additional litigation relating to ballot access at the discretion of the chair, in New Mexico, to be presented to the Executive Committee in a meeting to be held within 1 week.”

here:

Andrew Chadderdon Region 1 Rep | Libertarian National Committee P.S. Your 18-day refusal to comply with the LNC’s September 7 directive to send a cease-and-desist letter is utterly unacceptable and reeks of negligence. I know that you’ve been advised in the past that trademark law demands prompt defense of our mark, yet you persist in stalling despite having multiple approved examples at your disposal.

here:

Andrew Chadderdon

I hereby provide notice of a motion to initiate trademark litigation in New Mexico against the organization using the name “Libertarian Party of New Mexico” and operating via the website lpnm.us.
Prior to the meeting, I request assistance from the Treasurer or the FSC to determine the appropriate funding amount for the case and to incorporate corresponding allocations into the motion.
If adopted, the LNC shall promptly prepare and file a lawsuit in this matter, unless the offending parties immediately cease their infringement upon any and all trademarked or copyrighted LNC materials in any and all online or business-related publications or activities.
It is essential that the LNC pursue this action if the issue remains unresolved by the upcoming meeting, in light of the cease-and-desist letter authorized on September 7. This infringement is particularly concerning given that, after appearing on 2024 ballots as the “Liberal Party,” the group has resumed use of our mark, despite awareness of the LNC’s successful trademark defense in Michigan.
Our defense is further critical amid the ongoing ballot access dispute, where the LNC is considering joining as a co-plaintiff. This follows the LNC’s investment of over $50,000 to support our recognized affiliate, the Free New Mexico Party, in securing ballot access last cycle.
The LNC has a duty to protect its trademarks, and the timing is urgent following the infringing group’s joint statement with the Democratic Party earlier this week, which directly challenges our mark. If infringements persist, we must initiate litigation promptly to prevent dilution or potential forfeiture of our trademark rights.
Chadderdon … Have you done your job yet and sent the cease-and-desist letter? Tomorrow will mark 3 weeks since you were directed to do so…
Steven, The LNC’s September 7 motion explicitly directed you, as Chair, to send this C&D letter.
Because you refused the order to send the letter (after our intent to do so was made public), the Democrats and leftist operators that are infringing on our brand in New Mexico quickly moved to issue a joint statement via their captured party, directly challenging our trademark claim. (See: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16pn6tdxkL/)
Was this maneuvering part of any of your secret legal discussions with Nick Sarwark? Isn’t Nick Sarwark a close friend of Chris Luchini?
What a waste of very scarce LP resources, and immoral and pointless to boot.

From Grok:

Final Summary of the Conversation

The conversation revolves around your perspective, as Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian theorist critical of intellectual property (IP) laws, particularly trademarks, which you view as unjust state-granted monopolies that infringe on free speech and property rights. The focus is on the Libertarian Party’s (LP) hypothetical or actual use of trademark law, specifically regarding the “Libertarian Party” mark, and whether their actions align with your moral framework of non-aggression. You believe it’s permissible to obtain IP rights (like patents or trademarks) for defensive purposes—e.g., to prevent others from using those rights to block your own use—but offensive enforcement against innocent parties is immoral unless strictly necessary to preserve the defensive utility of the right. The discussion explores how the LP could act morally within the existing trademark system, the risks of non-enforcement, and whether you should resign from the LP’s Judicial Committee and the party itself in protest of their trademark lawsuit against a Michigan affiliate (Libertarian National Committee, Inc. v. Saliba).

Your Views (as Stephan Kinsella)

  1. Moral Framework:
    • IP Opposition: You view trademark law (and all IP) as illegitimate, as it creates state-backed monopolies that aggress against others’ property rights and free speech.
    • Defensive Use Permissible: Registering a trademark is morally acceptable if done solely to prevent others from registering it and using it to enjoin your own use (akin to defensive patent countersuits).
    • Enforcement Limits: Enforcing a trademark (e.g., via lawsuits) is immoral unless it’s necessary to maintain the mark’s validity for its defensive purpose. Offensive suits against innocent parties (e.g., internal dissenters not directly threatening your rights) violate the non-aggression principle.
    • Pragmatic Navigation: While you oppose the system, participating minimally to avoid harm (e.g., losing the ability to use your own name) is justified, similar to using state courts defensively while advocating for private alternatives.
  2. Applied to the LP: You argue the LP should hold the “Libertarian Party” mark to block hostile registrations but avoid aggressive enforcement unless required to preserve the mark’s defensive shield. You suggest alternatives like nominal-fee ($1) licenses with disclaimers to resolve infringements voluntarily, minimizing state coercion.

Key Points of Discussion

  1. Defensive Trademark Strategy:
    • Initial Question: You asked if the LP, agreeing with your anti-trademark stance, could justify a lawsuit against a state affiliate using their mark, and whether non-enforcement (while maintaining registration and use) is viable without risking loss of the defensive shield.
    • Risks of Non-Enforcement: I outlined that never enforcing the mark is legally possible if the LP maintains active use and USPTO filings (declarations of use and renewals). Non-enforcement doesn’t automatically trigger abandonment under the Lanham Act, but risks include:
      • Genericide: Widespread, uncontrolled use could make “Libertarian Party” a generic term, unprotectable by anyone, which achieves your defensive goal (no one can enjoin the LP) but risks voter confusion in politics.
      • Weakening Short of Genericide: Inaction could erode distinctiveness, allowing third parties to challenge the registration via TTAB cancellation for abandonment or loss of source-identifying function. A hostile group might then register a variant or assert common-law rights, though full genericide would block this.
    • Clarification on Genericide: You correctly noted that if the mark becomes generic, no one can re-register it, nullifying the risk of a hostile group using trademark law against the LP. Thus, non-enforcement leading to genericide aligns with your goal of neutralizing the mark’s monopoly without aggression.
  2. Recommended Strategy:
    • Core Approach: The LP should:
      • (a) Register the mark to secure nationwide priority, preventing others from registering it first and suing to block LP use.
      • (b) Default to non-enforcement, avoiding lawsuits or cease-and-desist letters, as this minimizes aggression and could lead to genericide, freeing the term for all.
    • Prudent Safeguard: Selectively offer $1 licenses with quality control (e.g., a disclaimer like “Not an official affiliate of the national Libertarian Party”) to infringers posing a credible risk to the mark’s validity (e.g., if their use invites cancellation challenges). This voluntary contract demonstrates control, reduces abandonment risks, and avoids coercive litigation. A public policy announcing this approach signals principled restraint.
    • Why Prudent?: While pure non-enforcement is viable and morally preferable, minimal licensing mitigates the “long shot” risk of transitional weakening (where the mark loses strength but isn’t fully generic), which could allow legal harassment before genericide is achieved.
  3. The Saliba Lawsuit and Resignation:
    • Context: The LNC sued eight members of a dissenting Michigan affiliate (Libertarian National Committee, Inc. v. Saliba, filed in federal court, with a preliminary injunction partially upheld by the Sixth Circuit in August 2024). The dissenters’ use of “Libertarian Party of Michigan” caused confusion over affiliation and assets. The case settled in November 2024, allowing non-commercial use with disclaimers.
    • Moral Evaluation:
      • Defensive Argument: If the suit was necessary to prevent dilution or abandonment (e.g., to stop widespread confusion risking genericide or cancellation), it fits your exception for enforcement to preserve the defensive shield.
      • Offensive Concern: The suit appears proactive, targeting internal dissenters not directly suing the LNC, suggesting possible aggression to consolidate power rather than pure defense. A $1 license with a disclaimer could have resolved the issue without litigation, aligning with your non-aggressive ideal.
    • Resignation Decision: As of October 2025, no evidence suggests you’ve resigned from the LP Judicial Committee (where you’ve served since 2022) or the party. Resignation would be warranted if the lawsuit was avoidable aggression, signaling opposition to IP hypocrisy. Staying to advocate for minimal enforcement (e.g., via bylaws or committee rulings) aligns with pragmatic reform if the suit was a reluctant necessity. Publicizing your critique either way advances your anti-IP stance.

Where We Ended Up

The LP can morally hold the “Libertarian Party” mark defensively by registering it and avoiding enforcement unless absolutely necessary to prevent cancellation or hostile re-registration. Offering $1 licenses with disclaimers (as you proposed for the Michigan case) is the least aggressive, most principled approach to resolve infringements while preserving the mark, avoiding costly lawsuits like Saliba (which spent ~$100,000). This strategy undermines the trademark system’s coercive nature by steering toward genericide or controlled use without state force. Regarding resignation, it hinges on whether you view the Saliba suit as unnecessary aggression (favoring resignation) or defensive necessity (favoring staying to influence). No resignation has occurred, suggesting you may see reform from within as viable, but public critique remains a powerful tool to align the LP with your principles.

Share
{ 0 comments… add one }

Next post:

Previous post:

The Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF) is dedicated to building public awareness of the manner in which so-called “intellectual property” (IP) laws and policies impede innovation, creativity, communication, learning, knowledge, emulation, and information sharing. We are for property rights, free markets, competition, commerce, cooperation, and the voluntary sharing of knowledge, and oppose IP laws, which systematically impede or hamper innovation. IP law should be completely and immediately abolished.

We provide news commentary and analysis and scholarly resources from our unique pro-property, pro-market, pro-innovation perspective.

Archives

The Problem with Intellectual Property

A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP

Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Anarchists and Others on Intellectual Property

The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright

Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property

[From my Webnote series]

Webnotes

IP Answer Man

This site rocks the Classic Responsive Skin for Thesis.

WP Admin