From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
753 F.2d 131 (1985)
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (association) (plaintiff) was founded in 1909 for the purpose of promoting equal rights and eradicating racial prejudice in the United States. During the 1930s, the association created a separate legal entity called the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (fund) (defendant). To complete the incorporation of the fund, in 1939, the association passed a resolution granting permission for the fund to use the NAACP initials. In 1957, facing challenges to the fund’s tax-exempt status arising from its close relationship to the association’s political activities, the parties decided that the fund would become independent. At that time, it was agreed that the fund would continue to use the NAACP initials, but that the organizations would no longer share board members and would sever other ties. Tensions between the organizations grew during the 1960s, largely because of fundraising competition. In 1965, the association’s board voted to ask the fund to stop using the NAACP name and to seek an injunction if the fund refused to do so. The fund declined, and unsuccessful negotiations ensued, but the association did not take legal action. From 1966–1978, the association was silent about the fund’s use of the initials. By 1966, the fund was including a disclaimer on its stationery disavowing any present relationship with the association; however, the fund continued to spend time and money building goodwill, soliciting donations, and recruiting legal talent using the NAACP initials. The association raised the issue again in 1978 and adopted a resolution the following year that rescinded the earlier one granting the fund permission to use the name. In 1982, the association registered the NAACP initials with the Patent and Trademark Office and filed suit against the fund, alleging trademark infringement. The district court awarded summary judgment to the association, and the fund appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Bazelon, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.