Does the Roman Catholic Church have a trademark on its name?

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

Or I can I start a church and use the name (I am not sure of the official name the RCC)? Can I sell official RCC merchandise?

[clairobscur]

I think there are already at least two or three alternative Roman Catholic Churches, and I don’t remember the Vatican dragging them to court.

[Schnitte]

@clairobscur

I think there are already at least two or three alternative Roman Catholic Churches, and I don’t remember the Vatican dragging them to court.

There is a 1993 ruling of the German Federal Court of Justice (the Bundesgerichtshof) where a German diocese sued a private organization which adhered to the excummnicated French ex-bishop Lefebre. This organization ran a chapel in Cologne under the designation “Roman Catholic.” The Court ruled that the Roman Catholic Church (i.e., the one in Rome headed by Benedict XVI.) possesses the sole rights to the terms “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” in so far as they are used to designate institutions and events as being associated with a religious organization.

This ruling, however, was not based upon trademark law, but on a different provision in the German civil code granting protection to a person’s name.

[aldiboronti]

@Schnitte

There is a 1993 ruling of the German Federal Court of Justice (the Bundesgerichtshof) where a German diocese sued a private organization which adhered to the excummnicated French ex-bishop Lefebre. This organization ran a chapel in Cologne under the designation “Roman Catholic.” The Court ruled that the Roman Catholic Church (i.e., the one in Rome headed by Benedict XVI.) possesses the sole rights to the terms “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” in so far as they are used to designate institutions and events as being associated with a religious organization.

This ruling, however, was not based upon trademark law, but on a different provision in the German civil code granting protection to a person’s name.

I can understand them getting sole rights to “Roman Catholic” but ruling that they should have “Catholic” on its own too is bizarre. Catholic simply means universal; the Church of England has officially designated itself as Catholic ever since the break from Rome; it’s just not Roman Catholic.

[friedo]

@Schnitte

The Court ruled that the Roman Catholic Church (i.e., the one in Rome headed by Benedict XVI.) possesses the sole rights to the terms “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” in so far as they are used to designate institutions and events as being associated with a religious organization.

Roman Catholic is one thing, but there are plenty of other (non-nutball) churches that use Catholic in their name. the Church of England, for example, as well as all the Eastern Catholic churches which are in communion with Rome, and the Eastern Orthodox Church which isn’t.

[Schnitte]

@friedo

Roman Catholic is one thing, but there are plenty of other (non-nutball) churches that use Catholic in their name. the Church of England, for example, as well as all the Eastern Catholic churches which are in communion with Rome, and the Eastern Orthodox Church which isn’t.

I see that point, and the judges also saw it in their judgment. They also mentioned the translation of “Catholic” as “universal,” but they argued that common usage associates the term specifically with the Roman Catholic Church; the words “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” are widely seen as synonymous (according to the Court). Apparently, however, they are eager to restrict the importance of their argumentation by stressing that they are judging the affair strictly under the aspect of the legal protection of names, not under theological aspects.