Libertarian Party Trademark Assertions and Enforcement

Related:

• LP Platform
• Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform
• Recent Trademark litigation emails from the LNC Public List

All IP is unjust, including trademark law. This is implied by sec. 2.1 of the Platform, which leaves no room for IP rights “Aggression is the use, trespass against, or invasion of the borders of another person’s owned resource (property) without the owner’s consent; or the threat…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) October 2, 2025

Case in point: https://t.co/JLCvAcbJES

From: Andrew Chadderdon <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2025 7:42:28 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Andrew Watkins <[email protected]>; Keith Thompson <[email protected]>; Evan McMahon…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) October 2, 2025

https://t.co/gQy6nhbauY

Affirm zealous defense of trademarks Chadderdon 10 Minutes

5 Mr. Chadderdon’s withdrawn motion had stated as follows: that the LNC and its Chair, Steven Nekhaila, affirm the importance of zealous defense of our trademark against any groups that would try…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) October 2, 2025

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?

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.

***

Update: as I explained to a fellow LP member, they could have at least asked me how to handle this. I’m on the JC, a lifetime LP member, and a well known libertarian theorist and IP attorney and outspoken opponent of IP. I would have told them, look, if you want to save money and do this the most ethical way, just negotiate a license and disclaimer. That accomplishes the main goal and addresses most of the real concerns (e.g. of abandonment of mark). Then ask a trademark lawyer/litigator about this idea and see what they say. But I am sure they did not do this; it did not even occur to them. If they were familiar with the Platform they would have realized that IP is illegitimate per Plank 2.1 (and this is one problem with failing to explicitly mention IP there instead of having it be implied, which happened because of a goof by the Mises Caucus in Reno in 2022). Instead they are acting immorally and using precious scarce money. We cannot afford it AND we do not need to do it! They are just doing the mainstream thing. It’s sad.

Followup Grok analysis, for a friend:

Yes, this suggested alternative—offering a nominal $1/year license conditioned on a clear, prominent disclaimer of non-official status and non-affiliation—would work legally as a sound, low-cost way to resolve the infringement, maintain the Libertarian National Committee’s (LNC) trademark rights, and avoid the pitfalls of full litigation. It directly converts unauthorized use into authorized (and controlled) use, eliminating or sharply reducing likelihood of consumer confusion while creating a clear record of enforcement. Even better, as the comment highlights, publicizing the offer and any acceptance (or refusal) would let the LP demonstrate it truly is the “party of principle”: it shows fiscal restraint by avoiding expensive lawsuits, educates the public and members that IP laws (including trademarks) are inherently aggressive/statist and should be abolished, and proves there are practical, non-coercive ways to navigate and minimize reliance on the existing IP regime without compromising core values. This aligns precisely with the analysis in Stephan Kinsella’s October 2, 2025 post on the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, which criticizes LP trademark enforcement as a “waste of very scarce LP resources, and immoral and pointless” but explicitly endorses the $1 nominal license + disclaimer approach as the ethical, defensive way to minimize aggression while preserving any transitional shield against third-party blocking (See: “Libertarian Party Trademark Assertions and Enforcement,” Kinsella, C4SIF: https://c4sif.org/2025/10/libertarian-party-trademark-assertions-and-enforcement/).

Quick Trademark Law Context (Lanham Act Basics)

Under federal trademark law (the Lanham Act), the LNC’s registered marks like “LIBERTARIAN PARTY” are protected against uses likely to cause confusion about source, sponsorship, or affiliation—especially relevant for political parties where the mark signals official status and ballot access. The LNC already licenses these marks to recognized state affiliates. Unauthorized use by a renegade group (as in the ongoing New Mexico dispute referenced in recent LNC discussions) is classic infringement (See LNC Public List discussions authorizing cease-and-desist and potential litigation against the New Mexico group: https://groups.google.com/g/lnc-public/c/yngbFoUq2mM/m/N74EZOKhAQAJ ). However, the common fear of “abandonment” (via non-enforcement, genericide, or naked licensing) is overstated: courts do not require suing every infringer. Isolated inaction or selective enforcement does not forfeit rights; reasonable, good-faith efforts suffice (See: “Can I Lose My Trademark Rights If I Don’t Sue Infringers?” DBL Law: https://www.dbllawyers.com/can-i-lose-my-trademark-rights/ ).

Relevant context from recent reporting: As of March 16, 2026, the LNC Executive Committee (in an electronic Zoom meeting) authorized $32,500 in new legal retainers for aggressive civil actions, including a specific $20,000 retainer to Fresh IP PLC (at $300/hour) to pursue trademark infringement claims against the disaffiliated New Mexico group (now allegedly operating as the “Free New Mexico Party” or “Liberal Party USA” for ballot access). This is part of a broader litigation push that also targets former LNC Chair Angela McArdle and seeks to compel the New Mexico Secretary of State to allow the official affiliate to use the “Libertarian Party of New Mexico” name. The actions underscore the current leadership’s focus on protecting brand identity amid internal disputes during the 2026 election cycle (See: “Libertarian National Committee Executive Committee Targets Former Chair and New Mexico Officials in Major Litigation Push,” Triopolitan: https://triopolitan.com/2026/03/16/libertarian-national-committee-executive-committee-targets-former-chair-and-new-mexico-officials-in-major-litigation-push/ ).

How the License Offer Works Legally

This is a standard out-of-court settlement/licensing tactic that turns a dispute into a controlled, documented relationship—exactly the pragmatic, low-coercion path Kinsella recommends in his post to avoid “proactive suits” that violate the non-aggression principle while still addressing any defensive needs:

1. It Demonstrates Active Policing (Avoiding Abandonment Claims): Sending the formal license offer (even if refused) creates an immediate paper trail of enforcement. Courts view this as proactive and reasonable—far better than doing nothing. If accepted, it’s authorized use under your terms. Refusal simply strengthens your position for any later cease-and-desist or suit.
2. The Disclaimer Directly Eliminates Likelihood of Confusion: Infringement hinges on confusion. Requiring a prominent website notice (“This is not the official Libertarian Party nor affiliated with the national LP/LNC”) fixes that problem head-on. The closely analogous Libertarian National Committee, Inc. v. Saliba (6th Cir. 2024) case—exactly a renegade Michigan faction using the mark—explicitly upheld most of an injunction against unauthorized use but carved out an exception allowing online solicitation if accompanied by clear disclaimers distinguishing the group from the official affiliate. The court ruled the disclaimers prevented confusion, even in a heated intra-party political dispute (See full 6th Circuit opinion: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0205p-06.pdf ; Bloomberg Law coverage of the decision upholding the ban with the disclaimer carve-out: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ban-in-michigan-libertarian-trademark-feud-backed-by-6th-cir ; and summary: https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/trademark-blog/trademark-case-libertarian-national-committee-inc-v-saliba-usa/ ). Your proposed condition mirrors this precedent perfectly, and Kinsella’s post notes that a $1 license with disclaimer “could have sufficed” in the Michigan case instead of $100k+ litigation.
3. It Avoids “Naked Licensing” Risks: Naked licensing (licensing without quality control) can lead to abandonment because the mark stops signaling a single source. Here, the $1 fee provides valid consideration, and the mandatory disclaimer is an enforceable usage restriction/quality-control measure (it ensures the mark continues to identify official affiliation only). A simple written license agreement lets the LNC retain the right to monitor compliance (easy website checks) and revoke for breach. Courts look at contractual provisions + actual oversight; this setup meets the test, especially for a political mark where “quality” is about affiliation/status (See: “Naked Licensing” explanation, Sierra IP Law: https://sierraiplaw.com/naked-licensing/ ; and general guidance on licensing to resolve disputes without litigation: https://www.ny-trademark-lawyer.com/resolving-trademark-disputes-without-litigation.html ).

Practical Outcomes + The Comment’s Strategic/Principled Advantages (Reinforced by Kinsella’s Analysis)

• If Accepted: No lawsuit needed. The renegade group gets legal use (with the disclaimer killing any “official” claim), the LNC keeps control and rights, and costs are trivial—especially compared to the $20k+ already authorized for Fresh IP PLC in the current New Mexico litigation.
• If Refused: The documented offer itself is strong evidence of good-faith enforcement, positioning the LNC excellently for litigation (as it has already committed funds to in the real New Mexico case).

Publicizing the whole process (the offer, the principled conditions, and the outcome) delivers exactly the wins the comment describes—and echoes Kinsella’s call for the LP to “default to non-enforcement” or selective licensing to risk genericide and undermine the IP monopoly: (1) It shows the public and media that the LP walks the walk on principle—using the least aggressive tool available in a flawed IP world rather than rushing to court (avoiding the “hypocrisy” and “moral violation” Kinsella flags, especially stark given the recent $32,500 litigation authorization); (2) It reassures members and donors that precious funds aren’t being wasted on expensive federal litigation; and (3) It becomes a powerful educational moment: “We oppose all IP as aggression, but here’s how we can minimize its use even while operating under current law—proving abolition is practical, not utopian.” This framing turns a potential internal rift into a messaging victory that reinforces libertarian consistency.

Minor caveats (residual confusion possible despite disclaimers; multiple licenses could theoretically dilute over time) are negligible for one or two instances, especially with the Michigan precedent on your side and Kinsella’s endorsement of this exact tactic as the prudent, anti-aggression path. Overall, this is cheaper, less adversarial, legally robust, and ethically superior for an anti-IP party. It’s a smart first step before (or instead of) the kind of expensive litigation the LNC has already green-lit in New Mexico—exactly the kind of creative, low-coercion solution libertarians (and Kinsella’s post) should champion.

***

Update: Interesting comments on the LNC Public List:

From this thread:

—

From: Evan McMahon <evan.m…@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 12:55:46 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Entire LNC <entir…@lp.org>
Cc: lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi…@lp.org>
Subject: Email Ballot 20260421-01 Reserve Funds for Michigan Litigation

From: Ben Weir <ben…[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 3:07:25 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncb…@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi…@lp.org>
Subject: IP Laws Shouldn’t Exist