UFT Members Win: A Better Contract’s Daniel Alicea Defends Free Speech, Beats Back Union’s California Lawyers

Unity UFT leadership’s attempt to shut down UFT members’ free speech was thwarted in domain dispute as Alicea, pro-se, beats back corporate lawyers seeking to take over uftmembers.org domain

In a resounding victory for internal union democracy and free speech, Daniel Alicea, NYC educator, a co-founder of the A Better Contract slate and the original domain registrant of UFTmembers.org, successfully defeated a UDRP complaint brought by the leadership of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and its team of high-priced California lawyers.

The UFT—represented by Norton Rose Fulbright, an international corporate law firm—sought to seize control of the domain uftmembers.org, claiming trademark infringement, attempts to mislead and bad faith through use of the domain. But the arbitrator, Paul M. DeCicco, rejected the union’s lawyers claims, overall, and ruled that the member respondent’s use of the domain is both legitimate and protected.

Alicea registered the domain in the summer of 2024 as part of an initial effort by a group of several UFT members to gauge members opinions on issues, discuss reforming the union and the possibility of forming a slate for the 2025 UFT elections. The domain remained in use as part of this organizing effort as the group transitioned to forming the A Better Contract slate in the fall of 2024.

“Respondent demonstrates that it has rights or legitimate interest in the at-issue domain name.”

“The site is noncommercial in nature… descriptive of the primary group that might have an interest.”

UFT leadership’s complaint centered around several claims that were soundly dismissed by the panel. First, they argued that the domain was confusingly similar to their common law trademark and would mislead users into thinking the site was officially from the UFT.

The panel mostly disagreed, noting that the term “UFT members” is descriptive, not deceptive, and accurately reflects a group of dues-paying members organizing independently. The website itself, the panel emphasized, contains no UFT logos or branding and clearly disclaims any official affiliation.

The arbitrator also noted that the UFT never showed evidence of actually registering for a trademark with a bonafide agency. (See: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results)

Second, the UFT claimed the domain was being used in bad faith, citing mass emails and political advocacy as evidence. While the panel chose not to rule on the issue of “bad faith” because the complaint did not meet needed criteria, the arbiter found no commercial exploitation, no attempt to tarnish the UFT name, and no proof that the domain was being used to impersonate the union. Even the UFT’s complaints about email address confusion were dismissed, as they failed to show that the public was genuinely misled.

The judge noted that even use of disclaimers throughout the UFT Members site and on the footer of its emails was not necessary, although it further supported that there was no malicious intent.

Alicea told The Wire: “I think that using a descriptive domain name for political speech and organizing among union members does not constitute an attempt to mislead but rather describes that WE, the members, ARE THE UNION. Ultimately, the arbiter agreed that we have a legal right to the domain.”

Moreover, the UFT tried to argue that Alicea should have known better based on internal election guidelines. But UDRP law—and the panel—made clear that internal campaign policies are not enforceable trademark restrictions, especially not when used to silence speech. The panel ruled definitively that the UFT Members' site was noncommercial and created not to deceive, but has a vested interest. The intended interest being to empower fellow union members seeking internal changes.

Finally, the UFT tried to argue that campaign fundraising via the site made it commercial. But the panel rightly rejected this, recognizing that soliciting campaign donations in a union election is a core form of political expression protected under the First Amendment. Courts have long upheld that political donations are a form of protected speech (see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1), and the panel agreed that accepting voluntary contributions to support a union election campaign does not convert a site into a commercial enterprise or infringe on trademark rights.

This ruling is not just a legal win—it’s a moral and political statement. It affirms the right of union members to critique, organize, and challenge leadership without fear of legal intimidation or censorship.

While UFT leadership spent union dues attacking its own members, Daniel Alicea and the A Better Contract community stood firm—and won. There is no formal appeals process within the UDRP system. Albeit, it’s unclear if the union leadership will seek another venue to litigate against rank and file members organizing.

The Bottom Line:

• The domain stays with Daniel Alicea, and by extension, the A Better Contract movement of UFT members

• The UFT leadership’s attempt to suppress dissent failed

• Free speech and member advocacy prevailed

This is a victory for every rank-and-file union member who believes in democracy, transparency, and the right to speak up—even when leadership wants you silent.

After celebrating this victory, Alicea remarked: “It’s crazy to me that our union leadership would seek to stifle our voices because they were threatened by members describing themselves as ‘UFT members’ online. They must’ve felt their unilateral, partisan control was being challenged and, quite honestly, it was and will continue to be.

We are the union! May they never forget it. Remember when David slew the giant Goliath with his sling, he still had 4 more stones in his pouch.”

---