The analysis of @CharlesE.Grant is solid but fails to convey how clear it is that you would be in the wrong emphatically enough.
What you propose would be a blatant and clear violation of the derivative works right when it comes to copyright laws, and of the trademark laws when it comes to the name. It is nowhere close to being "fair use".
If prosecuted civilly, you would almost certainly lose. You would probably also be found to have committed a willful violation exposing you to additional penalties and punitive damages, and even to criminal liability.
The likelihood of being prosecuted civilly is greatly increased because the violation is so blatant and clear, and because it would be on the Internet, making it visible worldwide.
The mere fact that it is not done for profit does not relieve you of civil liability including large statutory damage awards and attorneys' fees awards. Liability on the order of tens of thousands of Euros is likely even if the site isn't very popular, and the liability could be much greater if the site was popular and the company could make a case that it lost business as a result (perhaps 10 Euros per user might be par for the course, although it could be a greater or smaller award than that).
There would be some risk (although probably much lower) of criminal sanctions such as incarceration, potentially up to five years or so in prison. But, if you didn't profit from the site, a long criminal sentence would be unlikely even if you were found guilty criminally.
It wouldn't necessarily be possible to escape the civil liability for a judgment based upon your willful disregard for copyright and trademark laws in bankruptcy either.
You would be well advised to abandon the project entirely.
This is actually an understatement. It would be stupid and foolish, verging upon economically suicidal, to go forward with this plan.