I'm sorry, I can see this from a legal standpoint and all.  But, what harm does it do?  Seriously is anyone in Sacramento going to this church believing that it is somehow a part of the Seattle church when there are literally hundreds of Acts 29 options out there? 

This just seems petty to me.  How many "First Baptist Church"es are there out there, and does anyone believe that they are all affiliated?  If someone were to ask the pastor of the Sacramento church if they are affiliated with the church in Seattle what would he say?  Probably "hell-to-the-no."

I am thinking the Seattle church could be named "Mark Hill" and just avoid a lawsuit all together in the future.  :)  This is the sort of thing that happens to churches when they are forced into the business model and begin to see other churches as "competition" and not just as part of the body of Christ.  

Now if they decided to rename the Senior Pastor in Sacramento Mark Driscoll and sold little Mark Driscoll dolls in his image, making some huge sort of profit off of his masculine kung-fu-Jesus-grip, then they might have a case.  But come on, seriously?