Does the Army Have A Leg To Stand On? -Trademark Rules

Factual Questions
#1

The army has it in for a group called ‘West Point Graduates Against the War.’
However, the military’s means of attack seems pretty dodgey to me, trademark law:
‘West Point’ Off Limits to Anti-War Alums

Trademark links are ephemeral so here’s the USPTO, and the meat of the ‘West Point’ trademark:

Now if West Point Graduates Against the War were marketing golfballs or blankets, I could see where the army might have a case, but AFAIK, they’re not marketing anything that the trademark covers.
Is there some legal principle that gives the army a case here, or are they just blowing smoke?

#2

AFAIK, as long as the group 1. is not using the name for commercial purposes, and 2. is not trying to be misleading in claiming the represent West Point as an institution, then the Army loses. I could be totally wrong, I’m just basing this off of the Jerry Falwell - Christopher Lamparello imbroglio.

/not a lawyer

#3

The courts are very hesitant to interfere in legitimate political protest. George Lucas tried in 1985 to prevent the use of the registered trademark “Star Wars” in advocacy ads supporting and opposing President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. But Lucas lost the case when two federal judges ruled that “Star Wars” had entered the public lexicon and could be used for social criticism.

#4

The name ‘West Point’ is certainly protected from commercial use. But courts tend to give acres of latitude in the area of political speech.

All in all West Point ought to find more important things to spend their money on. They will lose.

#5

I agree that they will surely lose. However, it’s a way for a branch of the Army to legally harass, and drain money from, the anti-war group. The Army already has a staff of lawyers, and they have deeper pockets than the WPGAW, so even though they’ll lose, the case will be harder on the WPGAW than on the Army.