[zdragnar]

Hence why I included the bit about false endorsement, which is a federal rule.

Notably, from your link:

> Therefore, a trademark is "not property in the ordinary sense," but only a word or symbol indicating the origin or source of a product.

> Although its registration is limited to the words "Babe Ruth," Pirone would have us read her rights in that word mark to include every photograph of Ruth ever taken. We decline to do so.

The product in question didn't use Babe Ruth's name in any way implying an endorsement or origination of the calendar; it merely included some pictures. The ruling determined that trademark does not apply here.

Pictures have been deemed eligible for copyright, but that's neither here nor there. The name "Jesus Christ" is not eligible for trademark.

[thaumasiotes]

> Hence why I included the bit about false endorsement, which is a federal rule.

That obviously can't apply to use of the name or imagery of Jesus Christ; there is a much more important federal rule that says it is everyone's God-given right to assert directly that they are endorsed by Jesus Christ.

(This comment is imbued with the divine grace of the Messiah.)

[zdragnar]

A person may assert their beliefs, but those beliefs do not extend to trademark law, most especially in the context of "sue everyone else who uses the name of a historical religious figure that I have decided to take for myself".

[thaumasiotes]

Your argument is gibberish. As I read your comments, you say that:

1. It isn't possible to trademark the name "Jesus Christ";

because

2. This might imply that your company is endorsed by Jesus Christ.

But that is clearly false. Those grounds are illegitimate; the government cannot take a position on whether you are or aren't endorsed by Jesus Christ.

There are no "false endorsement" concerns raised by the hypothetical trademark.