## Facts

- New Hope Assembly of God Church of Norman, Oklahoma, Inc. was formerly affiliated with the Assemblies of God through the General Council and the Oklahoma District Council.
- The General Council and the Oklahoma District Council withdrew recognition of New Hope as an affiliated church.
- After recognition was withdrawn, New Hope continued using its existing corporate/church name containing the words “Assembly of God.”
- The Oklahoma District Council sued to enjoin New Hope from using “Assembly of God,” asserting common-law unfair-competition/name-protection principles.
- New Hope contended “Assembly of God” was generic or descriptive and not subject to exclusive control by any religious body.
- The District Council conceded the term was descriptive in origin but claimed it had acquired a secondary meaning identifying churches affiliated with the denomination.
- On remand from an earlier appeal, both sides moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment for the District Council and permanently enjoined New Hope from using “Assembly of God.”
- New Hope appealed, challenging the grant of summary judgment to the District and the denial of its own motion.

## Issues

1. Whether the dispute could be resolved by civil courts under neutral, nonreligious principles without deciding ecclesiastical or doctrinal matters.
2. Whether the District Council was entitled, as a matter of law on summary judgment, to a permanent injunction barring New Hope’s continued use of “Assembly of God” based on secondary meaning and likely public confusion.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment granting a permanent injunction against New Hope’s use of “Assembly of God.”
- The court held the controversy was adjudicable under neutral, nonreligious grounds because it did not require resolution of doctrine.
- The court concluded the record did not establish, without genuine issues of material fact, that “Assembly of God” had acquired the requisite secondary meaning or that confusion/unfair competition was shown to the level necessary for permanent injunctive relief on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Civil courts may not resolve disputes by determining whether religious doctrine has been followed, but they may decide disputes involving religious organizations using neutral, nonreligious legal rules.
- Common-law unfair-competition/name-protection principles applicable to business entities may also protect the names of churches and other religious or charitable organizations.
- A term that is generic or descriptive in origin is protectable only upon proof of secondary meaning—public association of the term with a particular organization as its source/identifier.
- Summary judgment is improper when material factual questions remain concerning secondary meaning, likelihood of confusion, or unfair competition, especially where the requested remedy is a permanent injunction.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the permanent injunction entered on summary judgment, holding that while the naming dispute could be decided under neutral legal principles, unresolved factual questions about secondary meaning and public confusion prevented judgment as a matter of law.


Okla. Dist. Council of the Assemblies of God v. New Hope Assembly of God Church of Norman, Okla., Inc., 597 P.2d 1211 (Okla. 1979)