`Christian Science' not a trademark, court says

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday that ``the existing generic name `Christian Science Church' cannot be appropriated as a trademark by The Mother Church.'' The court handed down its decision in a dispute between The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston and a disaffected congregation in Plainfield, N.J.

A trial court had earlier ruled that The Mother Church had a protectable trademark interest in the term ``Christian Science'' when used in or as part of the name of the church. The lower court held that there was a likelihood of confusion or potential damage by the congregation's use of the name ``Independent Christian Science Church of Plainfield, New Jersey.''

An appellate court, however, and now the state Supreme Court reversed this finding.

In a split decision, the majority ruled that the phrase Christian Science is ``used to refer to the name of the religion rather than the name of the Church.''

They added that ``the defendant's proposed name is sufficiently distinct from the name of the plaintiff's church to avoid a danger of confusion in the minds of the public.''

Two dissenting justices, however, argued that ```Christian Science Church' is not a generic term, but rather a descriptive term that signifies a church's affiliation with The Mother Church.''

``As such,'' the dissenting justices wrote, ``there is adequate, substantial, and credible evidence to support the trial court's finding that `Christian Science Church' is a protectable trademark.''

The court noted that Christian Science is a religion founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866. And it pointed out that local branches of The Mother Church consist of churches formally designated ``First [or Second, Third, etc.] Church of Christ, Scientist,'' followed by a geographical designation. This manner of designating branch churches is prescribed by the Church Manual and provided for by New Jersey law.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
QR Code to `Christian Science' not a trademark, court says
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today