Can Chuck E. Cheese sue churches for infringing on their intellectual property?

OK. The other day, I went to some goofy church puppet show to help my little cousin win a bike (long story). When I was there I noticed a striking similarity between this show and Chuck E. Cheese. Dancers who pick small children up and dance with them up front. 3 robotic puppets. Cheesy remakes of Elvis songs. And, of course, pizza. They even had games. Sounds an awful lot like Chuck E. Cheese to me. Does Chuck E. Cheese have legal options here? They should sue due to all this. But also because it was really boring.

yeah. I'm unemployed. quite a bit of time on my hands now......

They COULD bring an acton for violation of their intellectual property if (1) their trademarked items are being "diluted" but unauthorized use; or (2) if the violator is using the item for economic benefit.

Most businesses do not worry about the uses as you describe. In fact, they actually hope that people (like you) say -- hey - that's like Chuck-E-Cheese. We should go there!

Wow, you have a lot of time on your hands!

They should sue only if they have as much time on their hands as you do. Maybe the person who started Chuck E Cheese got the idea from church!

No. Churches are non-profit organizations. What harm did they do? Just trying to identify something the kids already knew about to keep them interested.

No, they don't have legal options. They are protected against people using characters, etc., that are almost exactly like theirs, but they can not use copyright or trademark law to prevent all competition whatsoever from having pizza, video games, and singing robots. Even if they could do such a thing, copyright law provides specific exemptions for charitable and religious purposes, which the show you describe sounds like it would qualify for. Just because the show was boring (and annoying, it sounds like) doesn't mean that we should punish the public domain by allowing a company to treat a whole class of ideas as its own private property. (There would be no claim for trademark dilution, as one respondant suggests, without a specific finding that Chuck E. Cheese is a famous mark, as defined in trademark law -- a finding that is certainly not a slam-dunk to assume. This would in any case still require a showing of possible confusion resulting from the similarity of the trade dress.)