This news story says the Arizona Independent Party will appeal the decision that it can’t change its name. The ruling yesterday ignored all the precedents from the U.S. Supreme Court about freedom of association. It ignored all the history of parties that have changed their names in the past. Even the two major parties have changed their names in the past, but none of that got into the court’s seven-page decision.
It is the essence of freedom that individuals and groups decide for themselves about their name. Can one imagine a government telling a church that it can’t change its name?
Relax and don’t worry, it’s going to be fine. The White People’s movement keeps getting bigger all the time. I’m dreaming of a White nation, just like the ones that I once knew. And now with mass deportation, my dream is starting to come true!
Yes, there are quite a few American cases in which courts have forbidden a church (or religious group) from using a particular name. This is a rich area of law with several distinct legal theories at play. Here is a survey of notable U.S. court decisions where a church has been denied the right to use a particular name, organized by legal theory:
1. Trademark Infringement — Seventh-Day Adventist Cases
These are probably the most litigated church-name cases in American history.
In General Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Perez, 97 F.Supp.2d 1154 (S.D. Fla. 2000), a new church calling itself the “Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh Day Adventists” continued using that name even after the national denomination refused to affiliate with it. The national church sought a court order prohibiting the new church from using the name “Seventh-Day Adventist” or any confusingly similar name, and a federal court issued the order, concluding that the new church had infringed upon the national church’s trademark.
2. Trademark Protection for a Non-Traditional Religious Name — Church of the Creator
In a Seventh Circuit case involving competing organizations both claiming the name “Church of the Creator,” a federal appeals court upheld trademark protection for the original holder. The court concluded that “Church of the Creator” was a descriptive rather than a generic mark, and therefore entitled to legal protection against infringing uses by other organizations using the same or a similar name.
3. Unfair Competition — Breakaway Churches Keeping the Denominational Name
Even without a registered trademark, courts have acted under the doctrine of unfair competition. A local church congregation that votes to disaffiliate from a parent denomination may lose the right to use the denominational name. The same principle applies when a new sect or religious denomination acquires a name similar to that of an existing one, or a local church withdraws from a denominational organization but continues to employ a name associating itself with the denomination. Church Law & Tax
4. First Amendment Limits on Court Involvement
Courts are careful to note that religious institutions are entitled to the protection of trademark and unfair competition laws to the same extent as commercial enterprises, and that enforcement of the trademark statute does not abridge the religious freedom rights of a group that is infringing on a church’s trademark or service mark.
5. A Unique Twist — The Proud Boys Trademark (2025)
In a very unusual recent case with a church on the winning side rather than the defending side: a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia turned control of the “Proud Boys” trademark over to the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, which had been attacked by members of the group. The ruling effectively means that Proud Boys chapters across the country can no longer legally use their own name or the group’s traditional symbols without the permission of the church. This arose not from a naming dispute per se, but from the church’s efforts to enforce a prior monetary judgment against the group.
Key Legal Takeaways
As a general summary of where the law stands: generic or highly generalized names are not protected from misappropriation under the doctrine of unfair competition unless a secondary meaning has been established, while descriptive marks can be protected if the holder shows the mark has acquired secondary meaning. Suggestive and arbitrary marks are inherently distinctive and entitled to protection without proof of secondary meaning. Church Law & Tax Churches can be both plaintiffs and defendants in these disputes, and First Amendment defenses have generally not been successful when neutral trademark law applies.
Teri show us your boobs.
Teri don’t. I only want to see boobs that haven’t been blacked. Herbert is just desperate because he hasn’t seen boobs in real life since he was a baby.