DECISION

 

National Rifle Association of America, Inc. v. NRA Foundation, Inc.

Claim Number: FA2601002199479

 

PARTIES

Complainant is National Rifle Association of America, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Mark H. Tidman of Baker & Hostetler LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is NRA Foundation, Inc. ("Respondent"), represented by Keith W. Medansky of DLA Piper LLP, Illinois, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <thenrafoundation.org>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 13, 2026; Forum received payment on January 13, 2026.

 

On January 14, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thenrafoundation.org> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On January 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 9, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@thenrafoundation.org. Also on January 20, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 9, 2026.

 

On February 10, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.

 

A timely Additional submission was received from Complainant and a timely Additional Reply to Complainant's additional submission was received from Respondent.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

This Complaint is based on Complainant's numerous trademark registrations for the marks NRA (the "NRA Mark") and THE NRA FOUNDATION TEACH FREEDOM (the "THE NRA FOUNDATION TEACH FREEDOM Mark"), and trademark application for THE NRA FOUNDATION (the "THE NRA FOUNDATION Mark") (collectively, the "NRA Marks"). Each of the issued trademarks were registered long before Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 30, 2025.

 

Moreover, Complainant registered the domain name <nrafoundation.org> on January 28, 1998, and currently publishes a website at that domain.

 

In 1990, Complainant established Respondent for the purpose of raising funds to support Complainant's charitable activities, and Complainant began using THE NRA FOUNDATION mark. Respondent has attempted to sever its relationship with Complainant and now seeks to pass itself off as Complainant or Complainant's authorized affiliate by registering the disputed domain name. 

 

Complainant has strong rights in its distinctive NRA marks resulting from its trademark registrations for the NRA marks around the world and from continuous use of the NRA marks in commerce since as early as 1871, well before Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name.

 

The disputed domain name <thenrafoundation.org> is nearly identical and thus confusingly similar to Complainant's distinctive and registered NRA mark and THE NRA FOUNDATION mark.

 

The circumstances in this case demonstrate that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use Complainant's NRA mark, THE NRA FOUNDATION mark, THE NRA FOUNDATION TEACH FREEDOM mark or anything confusingly similar thereto, for any purpose.

 

When Respondent registered the disputed domain name, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and the NRA mark and THE NRA FOUNDATION mark, as evidenced by Respondent's relationship with Complainant. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and instead seeks to trade-off of Complainant's goodwill.

 

Respondent also cannot have legitimate rights in an identical mark because only Complainant owns pending applications and registrations for THE NRA FOUNDATION worldwide. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the domain name resolves to a page parked by the Registrar.

 

Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by attempting to disrupt the business of Complainant and attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's NRA mark and THE NRA FOUNDATION mark.

 

B.       Respondent

The complaint in this proceeding (the "Complaint") fails to establish the elements necessary to obtain relief under the UDRP, namely, (1) that the Foundation does not have legitimate interests in the domain name and (2) that the Foundation adopted and used the domain name in bad faith.

 

Complainant intentionally withheld and failed to disclose pertinent information about the Foundation's 35 years of incorporation under and use of the name THE NRA FOUNDATION, INC., and the parties' decades of business dealings.

 

Moreover, the Complaint fails to disclose that these parties are embroiled in a federal lawsuit in the District of Columbia brought by the Association  (Complainant) that challenges the Foundation's use of the name THE NRA FOUNDATION which is the main verbiage in the subject domain and will determine the parties' competing claims with respect to the domain.

 

The Complaint should be dismissed, and a finding of reverse domain name hijacking should be entered against the Association. In the alternative the UDRP proceeding should be held in abeyance until the federal lawsuit is resolved.

 

In 1990, the Foundation (Respondent) incorporated under the name THE NRA FOUNDATION in the District of Columbia under the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act. The Articles stated, "[t]he name of the corporation shall be The NRA Foundation, Inc.," and the District of Columbia chartered the Foundation under such name. The Foundation has always used and had a right to use the designation THE NRA FOUNDATION.

 

The Foundation's formation and naming substantially predate all trademark applications and registrations filed by the Association that incorporate the term THE NRA FOUNDATION. Over the years, the Association and the Foundation have cooperated under their respective names as separate organizations with a shared mission – supporting responsible gun ownership and the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

To this day, the Association recognizes the Foundation and its validity where the Association's website states, "the NRA Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization" is "a means to raise millions of dollars to fund gun safety and educational projects of benefit to the general public."

 

On January 5, 2026, the Association filed a lawsuit against the Foundation in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Complaint, National Rifle Association of America, Inc. v. NRA Foundation, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00015-SLS (the "Association Lawsuit"). The Association Lawsuit admits and acknowledges the deep, long-standing relationship between the Foundation and the Association, but alleges the Foundation is not currently authorized to use the trademark NRA FOUNDATION.

 

In bringing this proceeding, the Association's actions constitute reverse domain name hijacking by engaging in an impermissible attempt to mislead the panel and steal the domain name from the Foundation.

 

C. Complainant's Additional Submission

Respondent does not dispute that the disputed domain name <thenrafoundation.org> is confusingly similar to Complainant's NRA registered and common law trademarks, including NRA, THE NRA FOUNDATION, and THE NRA FOUNDATION TEACH FREEDOM. Respondent also does not dispute that the disputed domain name is nearly identical to Complainant's <nrafoundation.org> domain name.

 

Respondent did not engage in its own charitable fundraising services (whether under THE NRA FOUNDATION mark or otherwise) until approximately late 2025 or early 2026, and its recent charitable fundraising activities utilizing the disputed domain name <thenrafoundation.org> are illicit and illegitimate.

 

Respondent omits that the NRA Foundation, Inc. (the "Foundation") was founded by Complainant in 1990. It is therefore Complainant that has used THE NRA FOUNDATION mark in connection with charitable fundraising services for decades, as confirmed by Complainant's Amended Complaint.

 

Complainant has not granted the Foundation any license, permission, or authorization by which it could own or use any domain name registration containing Complainant's THE NRA FOUNDATION or NRA marks. Moreover, it is Complainant—not Respondent—that is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

The Foundation, as an affiliate of Complainant, had actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights in and decades-long use of THE NRA FOUNDATION mark and its famous NRA mark prior to the Foundation's incorporation thereof in the disputed domain name.

 

Respondent's request for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking against Complainant is meritless. The Panel should resolve this domain name dispute on the merits because urgent relief is necessary here.

 

D. Respondent's Additional Submission

The parties are embroiled in a widely publicized federal lawsuit that will determine and eventually confirm the Foundation's rights to use the name THE NRA FOUNDATION—the same name that makes up the domain name at issue here.

 

The UDRP Complaint is repetitive of the complaint filed by the Association in the federal action. Indeed, the federal action's complaint asserts the exact same purported trademarks ("NRA"; "THE NRA FOUNDATION TEACH FREEDOM"; and "THE NRA FOUNDATION") against the exact same party (the Foundation) to achieve the same goal: a broad permanent injunction against the Foundation's use of its own name "The NRA Foundation" in any way. This necessarily includes use in domain names.

 

The Association does not articulate why the relief it's requesting is "urgent". If the Association were facing the urgent "irreparable harm" it describes in the Reply, it would have a remedy in the federal action subject to the limitations and rules related to such matters.

 

The Panel should remain consistent with standard UDRP practice and dismiss the Complaint to allow the federal court to resolve the issues controlling this dispute in the federal action.

 

The Association's new arguments do not satisfy its burden to show that the Foundation lacks a legitimate interest in the domain name.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONCURRENT COURT LITIGATION

Both parties here admit that they are currently involved in an ongoing federal lawsuit that addresses in part or in full the same issues as those raised in this UDRP proceeding. The resolution of that case will take precedence over any decision in the instant matter thus either negating or rendering superfluous any conclusion reached by the Panel here. Unlike some UDRP proceedings that have moved forward despite ongoing litigation between the parties, the matter here and the current court action both directly involve the parties' ongoing business relations and the intellectual property rights attendant thereto. See eProperty Direct LLC v. Miller, FA 836419 (Forum Jan. 3, 2007) (holding that the panel could decide the dispute under Rule 18(a) of the Policy "since the legal proceedings referred to by the parties appear to be concluded and Orders made. Moreover,… those Orders do not touch directly on the disposition of the disputed domain name or on the parties' intellectual property rights."). 

Based on the nature of the ongoing litigation between the parties here, the Panel, pursuant to Rule18(a) of the Rules for UDRP Policy, hereby terminates this UDRP matter. The parties are of course free to file anew if the decision in the court case still leaves UDRP matters unresolved. See AmeriPlan Corp. v. Gilbert, FA 105737 (Forum Apr. 22, 2002) (Regarding simultaneous court proceedings and UDRP disputes, Policy ¶ 4(k) requires that ICANN not implement an administrative panel's decision regarding a UDRP dispute "until the court proceeding is resolved." Therefore, a panel should not rule on a decision when there is a court proceeding pending because "no purpose is served by [the panel] rendering a decision on the merits to transfer the domain name, or have it remain, when as here, a decision regarding the domain name will have no practical consequence.").

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: BUSINESS DISPUTE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE UDRP

The parties here admit that they have been engaged in an ongoing business relationship since 1990 but are currently involved in federal litigation regarding their relationship status, including the right to use the mark that is the subject of this domain name dispute. Since the parties are engaged in an ongoing judicial proceeding that will address their business relationship and dependent intellectual property rights the Panel finds the current UDRP to be beyond the scope of the standard UDRP proceeding and thus terminates the current matter in deference to the court action. See Everingham Bros. Bait Co. v. Contigo Visual, FA 440219 (Forum Apr. 27, 2005) ("The Panel finds that this matter is outside the scope of the Policy because it involves a business dispute between two parties. The UDRP was implemented to address abusive cybersquatting, not contractual or legitimate business disputes."); see also Fuze Beverage, LLC v. CGEYE, Inc., FA 844252 (Forum Jan. 8, 2007) ("The Complaint before us describes what appears to be a common-form claim of breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty. It is not the kind of controversy, grounded exclusively in abusive cyber-squatting, that the Policy was designed to address."); see also Frazier Winery LLC v. Hernandez, FA 841081 (Forum Dec. 27, 2006) (holding that disputes arising out of a business relationship between the complainant and respondent regarding control over the domain name registration are outside the scope of the UDRP Policy).

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is National Rifle Association of America, Inc. ("Complainant"), of Fairfax, VA, USA.

 

Respondent is The NRA Foundation, Inc. ("Respondent"), of Columbia, MO, USA.

 

Based on the parties contested business relationship and ongoing court proceedings that include use of the mark that constitutes the disputed domain name Complainant's request for relief is denied as this case is terminated.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Based on the preliminary issues noted above the Panel declines to address this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Based on the preliminary issues discussed above the Panel declines to address this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Based on the preliminary issues discussed above the Panel declines to address this element.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Based on the preliminary issues discussed above the Panel declines to address this element.

 

DECISION

As noted in the "Preliminary Issues" discussion herein regarding the parties contested business relationship and ongoing court proceedings including the use of the mark that constitutes the disputed domain name Complainant's request for relief is DENIED as this case is terminated.

 

 

 

Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist

Dated: February 23, 2026