Your case is not as strong as you think. The cases you cited are not at all on point. They involve nationally famous brands and names where there was no real likelihood of confusion (fox, franken, Tommy).
Your case, on the other hand, involves obscure little known companies where people can easily confuse the 2 as coming from the same source. The pictures are almost the identical, as well as the font and the wording.
Also, there is no “parody” defense to trademark, and you were completely made to look like a fool by the attorney when you tried to raise that as a defense.
“Some parodies will constitute an infringement, some will not. But the cry of “parody!” does not magically fend off otherwise legitimate claims of trademark infringement or dilution. There are confusing parodies and non-confusing parodies. All they have in common is an attempt at humor through the use of someone else’s trademark. A non-infringing parody is merely amusing, not confusing
Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1997).”
Courts usually find that the less known a company, the higher likelihood there is for confusion.
Furthermore, your statement regarding trademarking a religious character shows what a moron you are. They didnt obtain a trademark for jesus, they obtained it for that picture of jesus, along with that style of lettering. Obtaining a trademark is not the same as a copyright, which happens automatically. You have to meet a certain standard of originality, and the u.s. trademark office has determined that they have.
Although they wont be able to collect damages from you, because no one purchased the shirt, they will be able to obtain an injunction to disallow you from ever selling it (unless they already have).
Citing to non existing legal defenses, and off point cases will not impress anyone.

“Despite your client’s contention that the work is infringing upon their copyright, my work indeed qualifies as a legitimate parody (even in consideration of its derivative nature) and under the precedent of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (510 U.S. 569) falls under the protection of fair use statutes.”
DING DING DING, you lose. That is a copyrights case you quoted, their claim is in trademark, where parody isnt included under the fair use doctrine.
Copyright/ trademark, learn the difference.
Nice try, dumbfuck.