Take Care When Naming Your Church

Church names are protectable under trademark law.

Key point A church name is a valuable property right that is protected by the legal principle of unfair competition. Protection also is available under federal trademark law.

A federal court in Tennessee ruled that the "Seventh-day Adventist" registered trademark had not been lost by becoming generic, and therefore the Seventh-day Adventist Church could enjoin a dissident pastor from using the words "Seventh-day Adventist" in his church's name. The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists ("General Conference") is an unincorporated association that represents the interests of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Organized in 1863, it constitutes the official organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The church grew out of several congregations that believed that Christ's Second Advent was imminent and that the Sabbath should be observed on the seventh day of the week. None of these early churches called themselves "Seventh-day Adventist" and it was not until the congregations came together to create a formal church structure that the name "Seventh-day Adventist" was chosen. Since the official formation of the church, the names "Seventh-day Adventist" and "SDA" have been used by the Seventh-day Adventist Church as the church's name, and as its trade name in advertising and publishing. The church today has nearly one million members in the United States, as well as 3,500 ministers and 5,300 congregations. Worldwide, it has over 14 million members, 17,000 ministers, and 121,000 congregations.

The General Conference has registered the marks "Seventh-day Adventist," "Adventist," and "General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists," with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. These registrations protect the use of the "Seventh-day Adventist" mark in connection with several products and services including religious publications, medical insurance, educational services, church services, and missions. "SDA" is an acronym for "Seventh-day Adventist" that has not been registered. The General Conference claims that they are "legally equivalent terms," however, and that "SDA" has been used by the General Conference from 1863 onwards "as part of the corporate name, the trade name, in advertising, in publishing and publications, and in the performance of services."

A man (the "defendant"), who had been baptized in a Seventh Day Adventist church affiliated with the General Conference, decided to separate from the church because of a theological dispute. He formed his own church, naming it "A Creation Seventh Day & Adventist Church." While he was aware that the General Conference had trademarked the name "Seventh Day Adventist," he used it anyway, because he believed that he was divinely mandated to do so. He also created several Internet domain names containing the words "Seventh Day Adventist." His church had three members, and sponsored another church with the same name in Canada.

The General Conference sued the defendant in federal court, claiming that his use of the name "Seventh Day Adventist Church" infringed upon its registered trademarks, and amounted to unfair competition. The defendant argued that he was not guilty of trademark infringement since the names in question had become generic, or alternatively were descriptive but had not acquired secondary meaning. He also claimed that there is no chance of public confusion between his churches and Seventh-day Adventist churches.

"Seventh-day Adventist Church"

The court began its opinion by observing that "the existence and extent of trademark protection for a particular term depends on that term's inherent distinctiveness. Courts have identified four general categories of terms." The court described the four categories as follows:

A generic term is one that is commonly used as the name of a particular good or a description thereof. It is the weakest type of mark and cannot become a trademark.

A descriptive term is the next-weakest. It specifically describes a characteristic or ingredient of an article. It can, by acquiring a secondary meaning … become a valid trademark ….

A suggestive term suggests an ingredient or characteristic of a good and requires the public to use its imagination to determine the nature of that good. Examples are Citibank, which connotes an urban or modern bank, or Goliath, for wood pencils, connoting a large size. A suggestive term is considered stronger than one that is merely descriptive, and does not require proof of secondary meaning.

Fanciful and arbitrary marks are the strongest. A fanciful mark is a combination of letters or other symbols signifying nothing other than the product or service to which the mark has been assigned. Examples include Exxon and Kodak. An arbitrary mark has a significance recognized in everyday life, but the thing it normally signifies is unrelated to the product or service to which the mark is attached, such as Apple computers or Camel cigarettes.

Federal law specifies that a mark becomes "incontestable" five years after it has been registered if the owner files an affidavit with the Trademark Office asserting that no claim adverse to its ownership has been filed. The defendant did not challenge the claim that the "Seventh-day Adventist" mark was incontestable, but insisted that it had become generic because it referred to a religion or a set of religious beliefs, rather than to a specific church or denomination. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the General Conference's mark had become generic because "Seventh-day Adventism has evolved into a religion that has several denominations of followers who are all known as Seventh-day Adventists." In support, he claimed that there are at least two other break-away churches, in addition to his own, that are not affiliated with the General Conference and that use the term "Seventh-day Adventist" in their name: the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement, which was started in 1915, and the Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, founded in 1942. He also pointed out that there are denominations that use the terms "Seventh-day" or "Adventist" separately in their names, for example, the Seventh-day Baptists. As a result, the defendant argued that the terms "Seventh-day" and "Adventist" are generic and the mark "Seventh-day Adventist" is invalid.

The court noted that a registered mark's incontestable status "does not protect it from a challenge that it is or has become generic." Rather, a registered mark benefits from a presumption that it is not generic, and anyone who claims otherwise bears the burden of proof. The court concluded that the defendant failed to overcome the presumption that the General Conference's registered and incontestable mark was not generic:

The fact that two other small churches utilize the name does not establish that the relevant public does not associate it with the "mother" church. If anything, the fact that the defendant can point to only two other splinter groups founded in the last century that bear the name supports the conclusion that members of the relevant public would generally associate the term with the churches affiliated with the General Conference. The court also rejects the argument that the mark is generic because it "simply designates the twice-circumscribed category of people" who believe in celebrating the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week and in the imminent return of Jesus Christ …. The term "Seventh-day Adventist" did not come into being until the church bearing that name was founded in the mid-nineteenth century. And, as the defendant concedes, at best only a few congregations have adopted that name since, all of whom split off from the General Conference's church. Thus, the court cannot assume that the relevant public would view the term as a way to refer to a person who believes that the Sabbath should be celebrated on the seventh day and that the return of Jesus Christ is imminent and not primarily as a means of reference to a member of the General Conference's church ….

The court noted that the defendant had failed to introduce survey evidence showing whether the public believes that the term "Seventh-day Adventist" refers to a religion or to a specific denomination. It referred to a 1999 survey that found that 44 percent of the general public, consisting of adults 18 years and older, associated the term "Seventh-day Adventist" with a specific religious organization or church.

The court dismissed the defendant's argument that the General Conference's marks were descriptive, and had not acquired secondary meaning, since the marks were incontestable. It quoted from an earlier decision by the United States Supreme Court: "The language of the [federal trademark law] refutes any conclusion that an incontestable mark may be challenged as merely descriptive." Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985).

Application. This case is instructive for the following reasons:

First, it illustrates that church names are protectable under federal trademark law.

Second, it demonstrates that a church name that is protected by a registered trademark is not necessarily superior to a subsequent use of the same name (or a similar variant), even if the trademark has become incontestable. As the court pointed out, a registered mark's incontestable status "does not protect it from a challenge that it is or has become generic." However, a registered mark benefits from a presumption that it is not generic, and anyone who claims otherwise bears the burden of proof. The court concluded that the defendant failed to overcome the presumption that the General Conference's registered and incontestable mark was not generic. This conclusion was based in part on survey evidence introduced by the General Conference indicating that a significant percentage of the public associated the name "Seventh-day Adventist" with a particular denomination. This conclusion was not negated by the fact that a few breakaway groups were using "Seventh-day Adventist" in their names.

Third, even if a church name that is protected by federal trademark law has not become generic, the church may not enjoin unauthorized use of the same or a similar name by another entity unless it can demonstrate a "likelihood of confusion." This means that it is likely that the subsequent use of the same or similar name by another organization will cause public confusion regarding the identity and relationship of the two entities. The court used a helpful, and commonly used, set of eight factors in deciding if a likelihood of public confusion existed.

Fourth, the court acknowledged that trademark infringement requires that an infringing mark be used in interstate commerce. The court concluded that the defendant church's use of the name "Seventh-day Adventist" satisfied the commerce requirement in part because it used its name on its Internet web site. The court concluded that "the jurisdiction of the [trademark law] constitutionally extends to unauthorized uses of trademarks on the Internet, because the Internet is generally an instrumentality of interstate commerce." This is an important point, because it reinforces the conclusion that churches having an Internet presence are engaged in commerce and therefore are subject to the many federal laws that apply only to those organizations that are engaged in commerce. These include several labor and employment laws. General Conference Corp. of Seventh-day Adventists v. McGill, 2008 WL 2404036 (W.D. Tenn. 2008).


• See "Church names," General Conference Corp. of Seventh-day Adventists v. McGill, 2008 WL 2404036 (W.D. Tenn. 2008), in the recent developments section of this newsletter.

This Recent Development first appeared in Church Law & Tax Report, March/April 2009.

Trademarking a Church Name

A federal appeals court ruled that the registered trademark “Church of the Creator” was a descriptive rather than a “generic” mark that was entitled to legal protection.

Key point 6-05. A church name is a valuable property right that is protected by the legal principle of unfair competition. Protection also is available under federal trademark law.

A federal appeals court ruled that the registered trademark "Church of the Creator" was a descriptive rather than a "generic" mark that was entitled to legal protection against infringing uses by other organizations using the same or a similar name.

A church obtained a trademark registration for its name ("Church of the Creator") in 1989. The trademark is for use on "religious instructional and teaching materials namely, newsletters, books, journals, pamphlets, and brochures; photographs, calendars, posters, writing paper and envelopes, note cards; printed adhesive decals." The church has made extensive use of its trademark in connection with seminars, ministerial services; religious consulting services; ministerial ordination, educational information, and various publications. The church operates a website (churchofthecreator.org).

In 1999 a white supremacist organization (the "defendant") began using the name World Church of the Creator. This organization's members adhere to the religion of "Creativity," a religion that espouses that the "White Race" is "the Creator" of all worthwhile culture and civilization. Defendant uses the name "World Church of the Creator" to communicate its messages through flyers, pamphlets, brochures, newsletters, television talk-show appearances and news interviews, and the Internet. Its messages are frequently white-supremacist, racist, and anti-Semitic.

The church filed a lawsuit alleging that the defendant's use of the name World Church of the Creator was causing public confusion, infringed upon its registered trademark, and was causing "dilution" of its registered trademark. Further, the church asserted that the defendant's message was incompatible with and antithetical to its own teachings. The defendant claimed that the term "Church of the Creator" is generic and not a protectable trademark, and that its use of the name World Church of the Creator was protected by the first amendment guaranty of religious freedom.

The court began its opinion by defining a trademark as "any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods and distinguish them from those manufactured or sold by others."

The purpose of trademark law is to "aid consumers in identifying the source of goods by allowing producers the exclusive right to particular identifying words or symbols which they may attach to their products as a designator of source."

Trademarks are generally classified in increasing levels of distinctiveness: generic; descriptive; suggestive; arbitrary; and fanciful. The last three categories of marks, because their intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular source of a product, are deemed inherently distinctive and are entitled to protection.

In contrast, generic marks are not registrable as trademarks, and a term that is "merely descriptive" may be protectable as a trademark if it has acquired secondary meaning. A merely descriptive term is one that specifically describes a characteristic or an ingredient of a product.

The defendant insisted that the term "Church of the Creator" is generic and therefore is not protectable as a trademark. The church responded by noting that the mark became "incontestable" after five years of continuous use. A federal district court concluded that the mark was generic, and that it did not become incontestable after five years of use. The church appealed to a federal appeals court which reversed the district court's ruling and found that the church's trademark was descriptive rather than generic and was entitled to protection.

The appeals court conceded that "generic" marks are incapable of trademark protection even if the Patent and Trademark Office registers such a mark. It defined a generic mark as one that "has become the name of a product" such as "sandwich for meat between slices of bread." While the word "church" is generic, the court concluded that the term "Church of the Creator" was descriptive rather than generic:

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; 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 …. 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.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that recognizing the trademark status of Church of the Creator violates the first amendment because it restricts the free exercise of religion. It noted that the Constitution itself authorizes Congress to create rights of this kind.

What this means for churches

This case is important because it recognizes that the names of local churches and religious denominations are entitled to trademark protection even if they include generic terms (such as "church" or "God"). Such names can be descriptive rather than generic, and descriptive names are entitled to protection so long as they have acquired a "secondary meaning." This means that through long and uninterrupted use a descriptive name has come to be associated by the public with a particular organization, as is common with the names of religious denominations. Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation v. The World Church of the Creator, 297 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2002).

ajax-loader-largecaret-downcloseHamburger Menuicon_amazonApple PodcastsBio Iconicon_cards_grid_caretChild Abuse Reporting Laws by State IconChurchSalary Iconicon_facebookGoogle Podcastsicon_instagramLegal Library IconLegal Library Iconicon_linkedinLock IconMegaphone IconOnline Learning IconPodcast IconRecent Legal Developments IconRecommended Reading IconRSS IconSubmiticon_select-arrowSpotify IconAlaska State MapAlabama State MapArkansas State MapArizona State MapCalifornia State MapColorado State MapConnecticut State MapWashington DC State MapDelaware State MapFederal MapFlorida State MapGeorgia State MapHawaii State MapIowa State MapIdaho State MapIllinois State MapIndiana State MapKansas State MapKentucky State MapLouisiana State MapMassachusetts State MapMaryland State MapMaine State MapMichigan State MapMinnesota State MapMissouri State MapMississippi State MapMontana State MapMulti State MapNorth Carolina State MapNorth Dakota State MapNebraska State MapNew Hampshire State MapNew Jersey State MapNew Mexico IconNevada State MapNew York State MapOhio State MapOklahoma State MapOregon State MapPennsylvania State MapRhode Island State MapSouth Carolina State MapSouth Dakota State MapTennessee State MapTexas State MapUtah State MapVirginia State MapVermont State MapWashington State MapWisconsin State MapWest Virginia State MapWyoming State IconShopping Cart IconTax Calendar Iconicon_twitteryoutubepauseplay