Trademark infringement case against Open Stories Foundation

[Calm]

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/getting-it-right-clarifying-trademark-branding-concerns

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed a trademark and copyright complaint involving Open Stories Foundation and its “Mormon Stories” podcast. The issue is not the podcast’s viewpoint. It is the use of Church-protected names, images, and design elements in ways that are causing confusion about whether the content is official or affiliated with the Church.

What happened?

In November 2025, the Church contacted Open Stories Foundation privately about concerns with its branding. The goal was to resolve the matter privately and amicably.

The Church then engaged in good-faith mediation and proposed several options to reduce confusion while minimizing disruption. When those efforts did not result in resolution, the Church filed a complaint in federal court to protect its intellectual property.

Why does this matter?

The Church holds registered trademarks and copyrights so people can clearly identify what is and is not official Church communication. Names, logos, and visual design elements help people know when content represents the Church.

This case concerns branding choices that incorporate Church-protected names and design elements in ways that may lead people to believe the podcast is produced by or affiliated with the Church when it is not.

Why was mediation unsuccessful?

The primary issue is ongoing confusion about whether “Mormon Stories” is affiliated with the Church. To address that, the Church proposed a simple solution: a brief disclaimer that the podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is a common and straightforward way to help audiences understand the source of content. That step was not adopted. As a result, the likelihood of confusion remains, and the Church moved forward to protect its trademarks…..

The Church holds trademarks covering certain uses of the term “Mormon,” including in connection with educational services. Not every use of the word requires permission. But when it is used as part of organizational branding in ways that create confusion about affiliation, the Church has a responsibility to address it.

The Church’s goal is simple: ensure people can clearly distinguish official Church materials from independent commentary.

If they weren’t requiring Mormonstories to change its name and only wanted a disclaimer, I find it odd that OSF didn’t go for it.  Wonder why?

I believe there were some offering pro bono services, but that was when the rumor was they were going to be required to change the name.

[Calm]

On another note,  anyone know how to tell when a story has been published on the newsroom.  I feel like I must be blind and somewhere there is a date.

[Duncan]

I was under the impression that OSF already had a disclaimer. This is a kind of odd lawsuit though, the Church is saying it's a "victory for satan" if we use the term "Mormon" but anyone else can't use it either? They don't want a victory for Satan but they don't want Satan to lose in court?  

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

On another note,  anyone know how to tell when a story has been published on the newsroom.  I feel like I must be blind and somewhere there is a date.

If you look at the source code for the page, they provide a header that indicates the publication date:

<meta property="article:published_time" content="2026-04-17"/>

 

[Notatbm]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

I was under the impression that OSF already had a disclaimer. This is a kind of odd lawsuit though, the Church is saying it's a "victory for satan" if we use the term "Mormon" but anyone else can't use it either? They don't want a victory for Satan but they don't want Satan to lose in court?  

It’s all about getting John dehlin. They hate that guy. He has been using the name for years and no suits. Why now?? Probably because he gets attention and they don’t like it. Nothing like people using their real names on camera for four hours spilling whatever drama they experienced in the “Mormon” church. I have listened to a couple hundred episodes while commuting some years back. Very few of the stories sounded outlandish. Most aligned with my experience in the church. The experiences they share are not what the Mormon church wants circulating because to an outsider it sounds crazy.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

I was under the impression that OSF already had a disclaimer. This is a kind of odd lawsuit though, the Church is saying it's a "victory for satan" if we use the term "Mormon" but anyone else can't use it either? They don't want a victory for Satan but they don't want Satan to lose in court?  

It appears they are fine with other people using the term, such as Mormon Stories, as long as there is a disclaimer making sure that people know that it has no connection to the church.  I wouldn't be surprised if Dehlin refused to do the disclaimer because he knew that people already biased against the church would jump all over the idea of Goliath trying to sue poor little David over the use of a name.

Plus, I'm assuming that for Dehlin, even negative attention will benefit him and bring him in new followers and their monetary contributions.  Even if he ultimately settles he's probably hoping to laugh all the way to the bank with this one.

[bluebell]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed a trademark and copyright complaint involving Open Stories Foundation and its “Mormon Stories” podcast. The issue is not the podcast’s viewpoint. It is the use of Church-protected names, images, and design elements in ways that are causing confusion about whether the content is official or affiliated with the Church.

What happened?

In November 2025, the Church contacted Open Stories Foundation privately about concerns with its branding. The goal was to resolve the matter privately and amicably.

The Church then engaged in good-faith mediation and proposed several options to reduce confusion while minimizing disruption. When those efforts did not result in resolution, the Church filed a complaint in federal court to protect its intellectual property.

Why does this matter?

The Church holds registered trademarks and copyrights so people can clearly identify what is and is not official Church communication. Names, logos, and visual design elements help people know when content represents the Church.

This case concerns branding choices that incorporate Church-protected names and design elements in ways that may lead people to believe the podcast is produced by or affiliated with the Church when it is not.

Why was mediation unsuccessful?

The primary issue is ongoing confusion about whether “Mormon Stories” is affiliated with the Church. To address that, the Church proposed a simple solution: a brief disclaimer that the podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is a common and straightforward way to help audiences understand the source of content. That step was not adopted. As a result, the likelihood of confusion remains, and the Church moved forward to protect its trademarks.

Is the Church trying to silence criticism?

No. People are free to express support for or criticism of the Church and its teachings. This case does not concern the content of the podcast. It concerns preventing confusion about source and affiliation.

Does the Church enforce trademarks consistently?

Yes. The Church reviews hundreds of potential trademark issues each year, including matters involving Church members and supportive creators. The first step is almost always private outreach. Most situations are resolved amicably. The same standards apply here.

Why now?

Public questions and ongoing confusion about whether “Mormon Stories” is official Church content made it necessary to act.

What about the term “Mormon”?

The Church holds trademarks covering certain uses of the term “Mormon,” including in connection with educational services. Not every use of the word requires permission. But when it is used as part of organizational branding in ways that create confusion about affiliation, the Church has a responsibility to address it.

The Church’s goal is simple: ensure people can clearly distinguish official Church materials from independent commentary.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

I was under the impression that OSF already had a disclaimer. This is a kind of odd lawsuit though, the Church is saying it's a "victory for satan" if we use the term "Mormon" but anyone else can't use it either? They don't want a victory for Satan but they don't want Satan to lose in court?  

They aren’t saying no one else can use it.  I know of cases where they have allowed it if a disclaimer of not being a Church website was used.  They were members btw, pro church sites that the Church did the same thing to they have done to OSF in requesting a disclaimer (assuming there isn’t a clear disclaimer), so it’s not ‘personal’.  FairMormon put up the disclaimer and licensed our own use.  I know they ask for the same thing with “LDS”.  I assume they will do the same for “Latter-day Saint” or anything else associated in this way with the Church where confusion may occur.

I do not know how they (they meaning the legal team for this area) determine this, but I would not be surprised if it’s based on actual reports of confusion and/or the size of a site.  Based on personal experience, I don’t think they (meaning the department over the internet/information) invest much in patrolling the internet for critical or otherwise material, at least not in the past.  Maybe news sites.  I wonder if my nephew in law who is rather highly placed in this area would tell me if I asked, lol.  I need to write up a list of questions for next time I see him so I remember this time, but I have had bad luck for hitting family reunions in the past few years.  He did answer several questions I had on how things worked 15, 20? (time flies and all that) years or so ago when I first found out that was the department he worked in.

They want the disclaimer on the podcast itself, I believe.  I would think other places where confusion occurs (saw one person state he was confused by the billboards, but I don’t know if they are that picky about ensuring no confusion.

 If there already is a disclaimer, perhaps the issue is it’s not thorough enough or not placed in a way that draws notice?  Where is that disclaimer as far as you can remember?

Edited April 18 by Calm

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

They aren’t saying no one else can use it.  I know of cases where they have allowed it if a disclaimer of not being a Church website was used.  They were members btw, pro church sites that the Church did the same thing to they have done to OSF in requesting a disclaimer (assuming there isn’t a clear disclaimer), so it’s not ‘personal’.

They want the disclaimer on the podcast itself, I believe.  I would think other places where confusion occurs (saw one person state he was confused by the billboards, but I don’t know if they are that picky about ensuring no confusion.

 If there already is a disclaimer, perhaps the issue is it’s not thorough enough or not placed in a way that draws notice?  Where is that disclaimer as far as you can remember?

© 2005-2026 Open Stories Foundation. All rights reserved. Mormon Stories is not affiliated with, endorsed or sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

at the bottom

https://www.Mormon*******.***/

[Calm]

I expect what they want is for Dehlin to say it on the podcast itself as many people just listen to podcasts and don’t scroll to the bottom of the page to read fine print.

Edited April 18 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Notatbm said:

It’s all about getting John dehlin. They hate that guy. He has been using the name for years and no suits. Why now?? Probably because he gets attention and they don’t like it.

He has been popular for a long time.  I have been surprised they haven’t gone after him before.

Since they make the same demand of devout members posting support of the Church and he has been doing significant damage to the Church for decades and was much more visible in the past imo, I doubt “hate” and him getting attention was the driver.  It would have happened years ago if it was.

[Notatbm]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

He has been popular for a long time.  I have been surprised they haven’t gone after him before.

Since they make the same demand of devout members posting support of the Church and he has been doing significant damage to the Church for decades and was much more visible in the past imo, I doubt “hate” and him getting attention was the driver.  It would have happened years ago if it was.

I’m surprised as well. Funny how the church wants to protect their use of satan’s victory.  Just goes to show the emphasis on the use of TCOJCOLDS  has failed to keep the church from being identified as Mormons. I’d have thought if it was Jesus’ plan it would just work instead of having to get lawyers (who Jesus openly criticized) to use their craft to force people to do his will. 
 

i think in order to be consistent they need to sue EVERYONE who uses the word “Mormon” in their websites, podcasts, tv shows etc who are not directly acting on behalf of the church. Being selective just exposes the hatred. 

Edited April 18 by Notatbm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Funny how the church wants to protect their use of satan’s victory.

You continue to state as a fact something that isn’t clear.

The stated explanation of needed to avoid confusion with the Church is otoh clearly sensible, given the result of confusion is at least a headache for the Church when others think they are putting out stuff they aren’t and often the loss of faith of good members who get blindsided by stuff they aren’t prepared for.

If someone encounters new information that they then rationally process and come to a decision that they want to leave the faith, I don’t have a problem with that.  I feel very bad for those who get overwhelmed unexpectedly and therefore have more of an emotional reaction, often a sense of betrayal which is so strong even if one resolves their issues, they can’t make a step back into their faith.  I have seen this happen over and over.  Mormonstories has been the most common source of reported confusion in my experience (thinking it was proLDS, being massively confused and overwhelmed by the information, unaware of how to address it, only seeking out help much later once the damage was set in and the ability to trust eroded). 

As someone who has always been interested in criticism of the Church, I don’t want people to avoid it, but being flooded by info one is not familiar with is not the best way to acquire useful and accurate knowledge.  I feel the same way about missionary work.  It shouldn’t ride the emotions, people should be given a chance to breathe, to step back, to talk to others, to study/research and most important to think about what it means to them.  I know this doesn’t always happen, maybe it’s even rare.  I hope not though.  I hope in the future now we are better organized with our history, such will be included in missionary lessons.

Edited April 18 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Notatbm said:

i think in order to be consistent they need to sue EVERYONE who uses the word “Mormon” in their websites, podcasts, tv shows etc who are not directly acting on behalf of the church. Being selective just exposes the hatred. 

Why sue when a website puts on the disclaimer and/or alters the appearance as requested?  They are not being selective, they are going after the guy who refused their request for an appropriate disclaimer that would remove the confusion…or most of it at least.  (Given the Church uses different colors than Mormon blue, I don’t see needing a disclaimer on the podcast itself as unusual or unreasonable).

That demonstrates it is not the use of “Mormon” or “LDS” (because they put out the same requests for that), but the association with the Church they are concerned about.

FAIR and other websites supporting the Church, but not affiliated with it had to jump through the same hoops as Dehlin is being asked as far as I am aware (assuming there were no additional requests not publicized, I have just seen Dehlin reporting he is being sued).  That you require every single site no matter the level of impact confusion might cause is unreasonable*** and based on your own assumptions rather than rational conclusions….why spend time and money once one has done enough to establish a legal claim to a trademark to go after everyone, whether or not there has been demonstrated confusion of that website over affiliation with the Church.

FAIR has been confused with the Church.  There was very good reason to require us to put up a disclaimer (I do not remember if we were proactive about it or the Church requested it).  We have done our best to avoid that confusion, including placing disclaimers in our responses to anyone writing in (if we don’t, we get scolded). We had to buy a license to use “Mormon” as well.  I know of other prochurch websites who have done the same for both “Mormon” and “LDS”, including only after receiving a cease and desist letter.  It is a pretty simple request to fulfill in my understanding.

***it would be costly and time consuming tracking all of them as new ones pop up all the time and it would be unreasonable for small personal sites to have to buy a license for use

Edited April 19 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/getting-it-right-clarifying-trademark-branding-concerns

If they weren’t requiring Mormonstories to change its name and only wanted a disclaimer, I find it odd that OSF didn’t go for it.  Wonder why?

I believe there were some offering pro bono services, but that was when the rumor was they were going to be required to change the name.

Disclaimer seems very reasonable. I wonder what open stories response will be since they implied your churches demands were unreasonable. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Disclaimer seems very reasonable. I wonder what open stories response will be since they implied your churches demands were unreasonable. 

They do have a minimal disclaimer as Duncan pointed out, but if they use that as sufficient to avoid confusion with the Church, I suspect the Church has plenty of evidence it is not.  I assume people write them with concerns much more than they write FAIR with them.

Edited April 18 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It appears they are fine with other people using the term, such as Mormon Stories, as long as there is a disclaimer making sure that people know that it has no connection to the church.  I wouldn't be surprised if Dehlin refused to do the disclaimer because he knew that people already biased against the church would jump all over the idea of Goliath trying to sue poor little David over the use of a name.

Plus, I'm assuming that for Dehlin, even negative attention will benefit him and bring him in new followers and their monetary contributions.  Even if he ultimately settles he's probably hoping to laugh all the way to the bank with this one.

Iirc, he has been asking for donations due to lower levels of it.  If so, this will benefit him….especially if he doesn’t have to pay for it.  This is, imo, the most likely reason the Church has delayed going after him.  As for why now, wasn’t it here someone speculated the Church was needing to renew the trademark soon?  If so, it’s may be a choice of losing the trademark (I have no clue of the legal ramification if this happens or if it’s even a possibility, hopefully Smac or someone else with legal expertise in this will help out) or giving him the attention he dreams about.

[Calm]

Chat says Dehlin/OSF has 21 days to respond and if he listens to his lawyer, his only public response till then will be “we will respond in court”.  I wonder if he has the self discipline for that.  

I anticipate some posting and deleting from him beyond the simple announcement of being sued based on past behaviour, especially if this doesn’t get much attention. 
 

When was the last time his name was in mainstream news?

Edited April 18 by Calm

[Calm]

While the Trib represented the request to avoid confusion as a requirement to drop the name, it doesn’t look like that is what the letter actually said (and it wasn’t only Dehlin who received the letter).  There is another letter that addresses “Mormon” for another website, but also does not say the only remedy is to drop it…though I suspect it would be the preferred one.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/12/08/lds-church-pressures-mormon/
 

Quote

n November, Dehlin received an email from Intellectual Reserve Inc., an arm of the church tasked with managing its intellectual property. 

The email asserted that the platform’s use of the term “Mormon” — when paired with other visuals trademarked by the church, specifically the Christus symbol and a “light rays” design used to illuminate text, plus copyright images — could lead some to infer that “Mormon Stories” is affiliated with the global faith of 17.5 million members. 

“The church respects your right to free speech and has no desire to censor your podcast, website or social media accounts in any way,” the email stated. “Our request is that you update elements of your branding to ensure viewers can distinguish your content from church content.” 

Since then, the show has swapped its navy blue color scheme — shared by the church — for orange. 

“We’re expecting to be able to resolve this amicably,” Dehlin said, “without any need for litigation.”

Nevertheless, he is adamant that he will not drop “Mormon” from the name.

“It refers to Mormon culture writ large,” Dehlin said. “And the church explicitly abandoned the Mormon identity under President Nelson.”

Looks like Dehlin changed the color of the site from ‘Mormon blue’ (my own label) to orange, so that would likely be added to the existence of a disclaimer at the bottom of each page as claiming it’s sufficient for not confusing readers.

According to this article, Deseret can be added to Mormon and LDS as trademarks the Church is willing to protect.  

Edited April 18 by Calm

[Calm]

 

[webbles]

Here's the actual filing https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.1.0.pdf

It doesn't look like the "Mormon" term is the main trademark infringement.  It focuses more on the logo and images.

In 2022, Mormon Stories started to use a blue logo with a "light-rays design" (see page 17-18).  The church is arguing that it is too similar to the church's trademarked "light-ray design" (see page 6-7).

Mormon Stories also uses many copyrighted images of the church in its promotions (see page 19-20).

 

And then there is this part:

Quote

Before filing this Complaint, the Church notified Defendants of its concerns and
attempted to work with Defendants in making changes to mitigate the confusion they have caused
and are likely to cause in the future. See Exhibit 5. While Defendants agreed to make some
changes, they were unwilling to take the actions needed to sufficiently address the confusion they
had created. For example, Defendants refused to include a simple disclaimer at the beginning of
podcast episodes, either verbally or in writing, acknowledging that Mormon Stories is not affiliated

with the Church. Additionally, while Defendants assured the Church they would remove the
Church’s copyrighted images from their website and social media pages and would not use
copyrighted images in the future, just a few days later Defendants used an image owned and
registered by the Church to advertise a Mormon Stories podcast episode.

 

 

[Calm]

So I decided I had to go view a YouTube episode and noticed the Spotify and other options.  As far as I can see there is no disclaimer on their Spotify page.  You have to open the description to see the one liner disclaimer with the trademark on YouTube, not in the video anywhere that I saw or heard (just watched the beginning and ending).  Not seeing a disclaimer anywhere on the Apple podcast version either.

[webbles]

Here is the letter that the Church originally sent Open Stories - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.1.5.pdf

I didn't notice it in the complaint but the letter pointed it out.  On Mormon Stories podcast main page, the main video use to have the copyrighted Christus statue in the thumbnail.  It has been removed.  But that does feel a little blatant attempt to make them look like they are church affiliated.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, webbles said:

just a few days later Defendants used an image owned and
registered by the Church to advertise a Mormon Stories podcast episode.

Shocker!

PS:  just in case it comes across that way, not saying the Church would refuse permission to nonaffiliated prochurch member sites for everything they don’t want on nonmember sites.  I think there is likely a difference, just makes sense.  I don’t know about the specifics of getting permission and what was required for licensing, haven’t seen the letters, etc.  I do know FAIR chooses to abide by the Church’s direction if they ever bother to give it to us (I do know we have wanted it at times and not gotten it, I assume the reverse is probably true as well ) as not upper management (my only official roles besides volunteering with email questions have been with the bookstore for a bit and then membership clerk).  I do know that avoiding confusion is one of the reasons given by the Church for trademark compliance to prochurch sites as well as critical ones.

Edited April 19 by Calm

[Calm]

I wanted to mention the whole confusion thing is real and problematic for more than just thinking critical sites are friendly towards the Church when they are not.  When FAIR owned this website, we had people condemning the Church for allowing such unChristlike behaviour (arguments between critics and members).  Anytime FAIR pushes the envelope and often when it doesn’t, we get condemnation of the Church as if it’s the puppet master controlling our strings, vetting all our content (they don’t)….from both members and nonmembers.

Plus when I worked at a non affiliated LDS bookstore in Canada (Beehive Books in Calgary, associated with Cardston Books), I lost track of people coming in saying “the Church has vetted all this, right?”.  We had nonChurch related books like Harry Potter and Judy Blume on our shelves, so that always made me smile.  We did sell some stuff from Church Distribution and Deseretbooks, but there are nonChurch ownrd LDScentric publishers out there.  We even had one or two church critical books on the shelves, possibly by mistake because when I pointed out one to the manager, though she did nothing right away, it was gone next time I came into work.  People assumed we had oversight just like Church Distribution, it was as good as church published if in our store.

In and out of the Church, there seems to be many who assume the Church puts a lot more effort into overseeing and making sure members conform than they do.  It is more honor system than Big Brother in my experience.

Edited April 19 by Calm