What people fail to realize, is it does not matter if this was for charity or not. The simple fact of the matter is that selling a derivative work that can be associated to a trademarked and/or licensed product can be viewed as endorsement. While Noble's intents were, well... noble, it is about the precedent that it sets. If you allow one person to do this, without going through proper channels in advance, then you are allowing anyone to do so. Some charitable organizations represents means and ideals that may not align with the vision that the actual legal owner would want to represent as a business entity. While Noble was doing this for the ultimate benefit of a well-known organization, if the precedent is set, nothing would stop the next person from coming along and trying to fund a charitable extremist cause. Then, if that effort is attempt to be shut down, after ignoring this one, that secondary effort would have some legal grounds to fight the shutdown. This isn't the first shutdown we've seen on people trying to sell derivative works. Plain and simple, if you want to sell a product based on an existing licensable product or concept, get permission first.