02-1381 TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation v. World Church of the Creator

Listen to this article

“A mark is ‘generic’ when it has become the name of a product (e.g., “sandwich” for meat between slices of bread) or class of products (thus “church” is generic). But ‘Church of the Creator” is descriptive, like ‘lite beer.’ It does not name the class of monotheistic religions. In the contemporary United States, variations on ‘Church of [Deity]’ are used to differentiate individual denominations, not to denote the class of all religions. The list is considerable: Church of God; Church of God (Anderson, Indiana); First Church of God; Worldwide Church of God (see Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc., 227 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2000)); Church of God in Christ; Assembly of God; Korean Assembly of God; Church of the Nazarene; Church of Christ; United Church of Christ; Disciples of Christ; Church of Christ, Scientist; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There is room for extension with Church of Our Savior, Church of the Holy Spirit, Church of the Holy Trinity, Church of Jehovah, and so on. Yet all of these are recognizable as denominational names, not as the designation of the religion to which the denominations belong. No Jewish, Islamic, Baha’i, or Unitarian group would say that it belongs to a ‘Church of the Creator’; and a Christian congregation would classify itself first into its denomination (e.g., Baptist, Lutheran, Russian Orthodox, Society of Friends), then into one of the major groupings (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant), and finally into Christianity, but never into a ‘Church of the Creator.’ No one called or emailed a Baptist church to complain about its complicity in the hate-mongering of the World Church of the Creator; people recognized the name as denominational, and that’s why protests ended up in the Church of the Creator’s in box.

“What is more, as these lists show, using ‘Church of the Creator’ as a denominational name leaves ample options for other sects to distinguish themselves and achieve separate identities. It is not remotely like one firm appropriating the word ‘sandwich’ and thus disabling its rivals from explaining to consumers what’s to eat. (As far as the Lanham Act is concerned, a denomination is a producer and religious services and publications are products. Neither side has questioned the application of trademark laws to religion.) Because there are so many ways to describe religious denominations, there is no risk that exclusive use of ‘Church of the Creator’ will appropriate a theology or exclude essential means of differentiating one set of beliefs from another.”

Reversed and remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Lefkow, J., Easterbrook, J.