Here's an oldie-but-goodie article: Komen suing other charities for using the word "cure"

[JackRiddler]

16. "I am not an intellectual property attorney"

should not be a disqualification in this matter. They are interested parties, soldiers for whatever side hires them who will never argue against what their client expects them to do.

Furthermore, civil law is not like the laws of physics; it's defined as much in the struggle as in the supposed principle. Being an IP attorney is not in itself impressive. You still have to make a credible argument.

Abuses of intellectual property claims are rampant. The common sense in this case, that "for the cure" is a grammatical combination of three generic and ancient English words that preceded the Komen foundation, and that these words without the Komen name do not automatically denote Komen, easily trumps the sophistry that would assign the phrase to an owner.

Komen never fails to use the full name of the foundation. That's all they should have a trademark for.

Unrelated: I agree with whoever here said that no matter who is using it, the phrase is nonsense and misleading. You may be paying for care and measures to help people survive, but you're not paying "for the cure."