Trademark infringement case against Open Stories Foundation

[Devobah]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

And how is this different from what happens now?

I guess it’s just very sisyphean in this kind of thing. I guess I’ve just spent too much time on the internet. I’m getting reruns. I hate reruns.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Devobah said:

I guess it’s just very sisyphean in this kind of thing. I guess I’ve just spent too much time on the internet. I’m getting reruns. I hate reruns.

 

I usually enjoy the second time around as I pick up details I miss the first time when I don’t know the whole story.  However, generally by the third time I am bored.  

[smac97]

Thought this was interesting:

 

[california boy]

Having owned an advertising agency and spent my career designing countless logos, one of the real problems with the church's logo is that it is based on another artists work whose image is now in the public domain.  It is equivalent to designing a logo using clip art and then getting upset that others used the same clip art for their logo.  

The second point that weakens their case significantly is that the church allows the use of the word Mormon to be used on countless other web sites not associated with the church such as this very site.  Given the history of the church and it's many offshoots, I doubt very much the church holds any legal authority of the name Mormon.

The biggest problem for Mormon Stories might be the use of the same "grave stone" border around the logo.  But that is also pretty generic.  As far as using orange, that also is pretty weak.  Companies can trademark a color, but it has to be more intergraded to their whole brand such as Tiffany blue, but it is very difficult and takes more than just a logo to establish color as a trademark of the organization..

I am not saying that the church does't have a chance of winning, but I am saying it is not a slam dunk that they will win.  When I first saw the new logo, I thought it was problematic because of several issues, being so generic was definitely one of my concerns.  Mormon Stories seems to be pushing as close as they can to the church's logo and still maintain that they did nothing illegal.

Edited June 12 by california boy

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

The second point that weakens their case significantly is that the church allows the use of the word Mormon to be used on countless other web sites not associated with the church such as this very site.

I assume this site like FAIR and websites owned by FAIR members had to get a license from the Church to use the name as reported by said members.

The Church would allow the use of “Mormon” by Dehlin if he made it clear it was focused on former LDS by using Post or Ex Mormon or some such thing.  This is what Reel did for his website as reported by the Trib iirc. (It’s linked to above.)

I am curious if the Church pushes for licensing from those who make it clear they are former members in their usage, such as exmormon dot org.

Edited June 12 by Calm

[Calm]

California boy, I assume with your work you know how to search the trademark database.  It would be interesting to me to see who has trademarked any use of “Mormon” by itself or as part of a word.  I sent Chat to that for exmormon and it reported there was no trademark registration for that as well as no record the Church required a license from them and no discussion of them getting a cease and desist letter, which is unlikely if they did get one surely.

If it’s not a big deal, maybe you could take a look?  I am not in the mood to read instructions from Chat today or do much searching, but I will probably be able to do it tomorrow if your or no one else is interested.   

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

California boy, I assume with your work you know how to search the trademark database.  It would be interesting to me to see who has trademarked any use of “Mormon” by itself or as part of a word.  I sent Chat to that for exmormon and it reported there was no trademark registration for that as well as no record the Church required a license from them and no discussion of them getting a cease and desist letter, which is unlikely if they did get one surely.

If it’s not a big deal, maybe you could take a look?  I am not in the mood to read instructions from Chat today or do much searching, but I will probably be able to do it tomorrow if your or no one else is interested.   

Go to https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results and enter "Mormon" in the search bar and you'll see every trademark application (either successful or unsuccessful) with that word in it.  I don't see "exmormon".

Edited to add: I'd put a link to the search results if I could but the site doesn't have links like that.

Edited June 12 by webbles

[Calm]

What does this mean “dead”?
 

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/78161091

[webbles]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

What does this mean “dead”?
 

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/78161091

 

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/apply/reviving-abandoned-application says that an abandoned application is no longer alive.  So I guess that is what it means to be dead.

[california boy]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

I assume this site like FAIR and websites owned by FAIR members had to get a license from the Church to use the name as reported by said members.

The Church would allow the use of “Mormon” by Dehlin if he made it clear it was focused on former LDS by using Post or Ex Mormon or some such thing.  This is what Reel did for his website as reported by the Trib iirc. (It’s linked to above.)

I am curious if the Church pushes for licensing from those who make it clear they are former members in their usage, such as exmormon dot org.

These things are more nuanced that simply who owns a trademark.  Here is what ChatGPT says:

 

Quote

 

In the United States, the trademark "MORMON" is registered to Intellectual Reserve, Inc., the intellectual-property holding company of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The registration covers certain religious, educational, and related services. 

However, the situation is more nuanced than simply "owning the word Mormon":

• Intellectual Reserve owns several trademarks containing "Mormon," including MORMON, BOOK OF MORMON, MORMON CHANNEL, and others. 
• Trademark rights are limited to specific categories of goods and services. A trademark does not give absolute ownership of a word in every context.
• Historically, the LDS Church attempted to register "Mormon" for broader religious-service uses, and there have been legal debates about whether the term is too generic because it refers to an entire religious tradition rather than a single organization. 

Interestingly, although church leaders have encouraged people to use the full name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" rather than "Mormon" since 2018, the church has continued to maintain and defend certain Mormon-related trademarks. 

So the short answer is: the U.S. trademark registration for "MORMON" is owned by Intellectual Reserve, Inc., which is controlled by the LDS Church.

 

This situation is similar to the word apple.  Apple the company holds the name Apple as a trademark but only for certain uses such as electronic products.  But someone could use the name apple for say a restaurant. Another example is the name Delta.  Many companies use that name as the company name from an airline to a well known faucet company and many others.  

I think the church has a pretty strong case against Mormon Stories, not because of the use of the name Mormon, but because Mormon Stories have used the symbol and color of the church enough to cause reasonable confusion of whether or not their site is a church sponsored site.  That is definitely pushing trademark infringement.  

Generally when issues have come up with clients, they figure out a way to distinguish what they are doing from the owner of the trademark that is in conflict.  In this case, Mormon Stories seemed to double down and by doing so was taunting the church to sue them.  My only guess is they did this to gain publicity to increase exposure to their business.  It seems to have worked.  

I am definitely not a trademark legal expert, so this is just my opinion.  I think the church will force Mormon Stories to discontinue the use of the Cristus statue image and blue color despite it being kinda a clip art logo use of artwork that is now in the public domain, but be allowed to keep the name Mormon Stories.  But it is a risk Delins could also loose that.

 

 

 

 

[juliann]

On 6/13/2026 at 9:06 AM, california boy said:

These things are more nuanced that simply who owns a trademark.  Here is what ChatGPT says:

 

 

This situation is similar to the word apple.  Apple the company holds the name Apple as a trademark but only for certain uses such as electronic products.  But someone could use the name apple for say a restaurant. Another example is the name Delta.  Many companies use that name as the company name from an airline to a well known faucet company and many others.  

I think the church has a pretty strong case against Mormon Stories, not because of the use of the name Mormon, but because Mormon Stories have used the symbol and color of the church enough to cause reasonable confusion of whether or not their site is a church sponsored site.  That is definitely pushing trademark infringement.  

Generally when issues have come up with clients, they figure out a way to distinguish what they are doing from the owner of the trademark that is in conflict.  In this case, Mormon Stories seemed to double down and by doing so was taunting the church to sue them.  My only guess is they did this to gain publicity to increase exposure to their business.  It seems to have worked.  

I am definitely not a trademark legal expert, so this is just my opinion.  I think the church will force Mormon Stories to discontinue the use of the Cristus statue image and blue color despite it being kinda a clip art logo use of artwork that is now in the public domain, but be allowed to keep the name Mormon Stories.  But it is a risk Delins could also loose that.

 

 

 

 

As I understand it, the church is not suing over the name “Mormon.”  Dehlin just wants people to think that. This is trademark stuff and he was dumb enough to not even add any modifications. It couldn’t be more blatant. 
 

The Tanners helpfully established case law that protected parody of trademark when the unsuccessfully sued FAIR for a parody site. But without parody, this analysis of the lawsuit points out where John is dangling in the wind on this one when it comes to trademark. http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case616.cfm

[smac97]

14 hours ago, juliann said:

As I understand it, the church is not suing over the name “Mormon.”  Dehlin just wants people to think that. This is trademark stuff and he was dumb enough to not even add any modifications. It couldn’t be more blatant. 
 

The Tanners helpfully established case law that protected parody of trademark when the unsuccessfully sued FAIR for a parody site. But without parody, this analysis of the lawsuit points out where John is dangling in the wind on this one when it comes to trademark. http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case616.cfm

A former member of this board (and a classmate of mine) represented FAIR in this lawsuit, and he did a great job.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

This just now from MS:

Setting the Record Straight: Clarifying the True Scope of The LDS Church’s Trademark Rights (Q&A)

Quote

Open Stories Foundation and podcaster Dr. John Dehlin today filed their response to a trademark and copyright lawsuit brought by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court in Utah and can be found here. (link)

Mormon Stories Podcast has been operating for more than two decades providing an independent platform where people can explore, celebrate, and challenge Mormon culture through stories told by current and former members of the Mormon Church, Mormon historians, and others about Mormonism.

The “Mormon Stories” name and its online branding have employed a consistent theme for 20 years, including disclaimers and clarity regarding having no formal affiliation with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Despite being fully aware and familiar with Mormon Stories and its creator and host, Dr. John Dehlin, The Church never once suggested a problem with the branding of Mormon Stories or The Church’s trademark or copyright rights. In fact, prior to The Church’s recent and unexpected intellectual property enforcement efforts, the only concern The Church had ever expressed about Mormon Stories related to the content, opinions, and viewpoints presented on the podcast.

What Happened?

• In April 2026, The Church of Latter-day Saints filed an unexpected enforcement lawsuit against Dehlin and his Open Stories Foundation claiming trademark rights The Church had spent years abandoning, and which “Mormon Stories” had been using for decades previously.
• “When first approached by The Church last November, we responded in good faith and immediately made changes to the issues The Church pointed to. We engaged in cooperative mediation and accepted a significant amount of their requests. We did not expect to encounter an all-or-nothing, one-sided approach to mediation that we feel The Church adopted,” says Dr. Dehlin.

So the mediation failed, and yet the lawsuit was "unexpected?"

Quote

Why does this matter?

• “It’s very troubling that The Church spent years on a very public and explicit rebranding campaign abandoning the name ‘Mormon’ as a trademark; and at the same time was making the opposite representations to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to maintain trademark registrations for names The Church had expressly dropped,” says Dehlin.

I'm not sure how this works, as my familiarity with trademark law is limited.  However, this assessment from Grok sounds more or less correct:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a strong, enforceable trademark portfolio around the word “Mormon” and related terms. The idea that the Church has “abandoned” these marks is legally incorrect.

Key Trademark Principles

• Abandonment under U.S. law (Lanham Act § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127) requires:
  1. Non-use of the mark in commerce for at least 3 years, and
  2. Intent not to resume use.
• Mere style guide changes or reduced usage do not equal abandonment if the owner continues protecting the mark or using it in commerce.

The Church’s Position

• The Church has never abandoned its “Mormon” trademarks. It owns numerous live registrations (e.g., “Mormon,” “Mormon Tabernacle Choir,” “Mormon Newsroom,” etc.).
• In 2018–2019, President Nelson asked members and the public to use the full name and avoid “Mormon” as the primary name for the Church. This was a branding/style preference, not a legal abandonment.
• The Church continues to use “Mormon” in many contexts (e.g., Mormon.org redirects, historical references, “Mormon Tabernacle Choir” remains the legal name for the ensemble).

Legal Reality

• Style Guide ≠ Abandonment: A trademark owner can change branding emphasis without losing rights. Courts look at actual use in commerce and enforcement efforts, not press releases.
• Ongoing Enforcement: The Church has actively policed its marks (e.g., against “Mormon Stories,” other critics, and commercial uses). Selective enforcement is allowed.
• Generic/Descriptive Issues: “Mormon” has descriptive/generic elements for the faith community, but the Church has strong secondary meaning and registration protection for specific goods/services.

Bottom Line from a Trademark POV

• The Church has not abandoned its “Mormon” trademarks. It has simply de-emphasized the term in official self-reference while retaining full legal rights.
• Critics claiming “abandonment” are misapplying trademark law to score rhetorical points. A court would almost certainly find no abandonment given continued use and enforcement.

This is consistent with standard trademark practice (e.g., companies rebranding while keeping old marks). The Church’s approach is a legitimate style evolution, not a forfeiture of intellectual property.

Thoughts?

Quote

• The Church is using its improperly retained trademark registrations to exercise control over words and language that it has no right to control, like the word “Mormon.”

Not sure how the Church can "improperly" retain "trademark registrations."

Again, from Grok:

Quote

Trademark Law Basics

• Trademarks protect source identification in commerce, not the word itself in all contexts.
• The Church cannot (and does not) own the generic word “Mormon” as applied to the religion or its members. However, it does own strong rights in “Mormon” for:
  • Specific goods/services (e.g., websites, publications, choirs, media, educational materials).
  • Branding that has acquired secondary meaning (consumers associate “Mormon” with the Church).

Why the Claim Is Wrong

1. The Marks Are Not “Improperly Retained”:
   • The Church has valid U.S. Trademark Registrations for “Mormon” and related terms.
   • Non-use in some contexts (style guide changes) does not constitute abandonment. Abandonment requires 3+ years of non-use plus intent not to resume (Lanham Act § 45).
   • The Church continues using “Mormon” in many commercial/historical contexts (Mormon.org redirects, Mormon Tabernacle Choir, etc.).
2. No Monopoly on the Word “Mormon”:
   • The Church cannot stop individuals from calling themselves “Mormon” or using the term descriptively (First Amendment protections apply).
   • It can stop others from using “Mormon” in a way that causes consumer confusion or dilution of its brand (e.g., commercial products, competing websites, or deceptive uses).
3. Enforcement Is Legitimate:
   • Trademark owners have a duty to police their marks to avoid weakening them.
   • The Church’s actions (cease-and-desist letters, oppositions) are routine and lawful when it believes confusion or dilution exists.

Real-World Context

• The Church’s 2018–2019 style guide shift was a branding decision, not a legal abandonment.
• Courts routinely uphold similar enforcement by religious organizations (e.g., “Scientology,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” etc.).
• Critics (including some ex-Mormon sites) often conflate “I should be able to use the word freely” with “the Church has no trademark rights.”

Bottom Line: The Church has valid trademark rights and is using them appropriately to protect its brand. It is not improperly controlling language in a general sense — it is preventing confusion/dilution in commerce, which is exactly what trademark law allows.

The claim is rhetorical advocacy, not accurate trademark analysis. The Church cannot stop descriptive or nominative fair use, but it can (and does) protect its registered marks.

 

Quote

• “No single church owns the rights to the words Christian, Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim. Similarly, the LDS Church’s actions raise serious First Amendment concerns that impact more than Mormon Stories. Hundreds of organizations, churches, businesses, websites, podcasts, blogs, and commentators use the word “Mormon” descriptively. Mormon Stories believes The Church’s legal position, if accepted, could encourage broader efforts to control independent uses of terminology associated with the Mormon faith, culture, and community.”

As I see it, the Church is not claiming ownership of the word “Mormon” in all contexts. It is enforcing registered trademarks for specific commercial uses (websites, media, branding) where confusion or dilution is likely. This is standard trademark law, not a broad First Amendment violation. Courts routinely allow religious organizations to protect their marks (e.g., “Scientology,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses”).

Quote

Why was mediation unsuccessful?

• We were surprised mediation was unsuccessful because Mormon Stories agreed to so much of what The Church requested:
  • Even though we have used the color blue in our branding and logos for many years, and even though The Church does not own trademark rights to the color blue and has never claimed to, we changed our logo color to orange – which The Church accepted.
  • We agreed to place the name of Dr. John Dehlin prominently next to the logo on all podcast platforms.
  • We agreed to remove all copyrighted images from podcast thumbnails, even though our use qualified as Fair Use under the Copyright Act, these images are freely offered by The Church to the public for news and reporting purposes, and we have used Church images consistent with other media outlets for many years without objection.
  • We added a disclaimer using the exact language The Church requested on every page of the Mormon Stories website and in the description of the podcast on every podcast platform, which is the typical placement of disclaimers when resolving trademark infringement disputes. In fact, the Open Stories Foundation website has had a disclaimer on it stating it is a secular organization with no affiliation to the LDS Church or any church since its inception in 2011.
  • We agreed to remove light rays design elements from our logo and branding, despite our use of light rays as a design theme for more than a decade without objection.
• “We feel our compromises were not legally required, but our willingness to adopt them in good faith should have been sufficient to avoid expensive federal court litigation that we are ill-equipped to handle as easily as The Church can,” says Dehlin.

This is interesting, as it seems to contradict the Church's statement:

Quote

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.

MS: "We added a disclaimer using the exact language The Church requested on every page of the Mormon Stories website and in the description of the podcast on every podcast platform."

The Church: "{T}he 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."

Thoughts?

Quote

Is The Church trying to silence criticism?

• We certainly hope The Church is not using its intellectual property rights as a tool to silence the open discussion of LDS Church history, doctrine, policy, and culture, and we choose to approach this dispute in that framing.
• But we also feel The Church is misusing its trademark and copyright rights by trying to enforce rights it has explicitly abandoned and is selectively enforcing copyrights against what is plainly “fair use” that The Church has permitted for decades.

"Explicitly abandoned" is a pretty bold claim.  

As for "selectively enforcing copyrights," copyright holders have the discretion to do that, I think.

I will be interested to see if this comes down to an argument over "fair use."

Quote

• “The Church’s actual trademarks do not give it ownership in any way to the word “Mormon,” the color blue, or the use of “rays;” and we are determined to defend ourselves and push back at the effort to improperly control language and branding that The Church does not have a right to control via intellectual property rights,” says Dehlin.

I think this does not quite sound correct.

1. “The Church’s actual trademarks do not give it ownership in any way to the word ‘Mormon’”: Partially true, but misleading. The Church does not own the generic word “Mormon” for all purposes (e.g., descriptive use, self-identification, news reporting). However, it does own strong trademark rights in “Mormon” for specific commercial contexts (websites, podcasts, media, branding) where there is likelihood of confusion with the Church. This is standard trademark law — secondary meaning + registration.

2. “...the color blue...”: Mostly correct. Color alone is hard to trademark unless it has acquired distinctiveness. That said, the Church has not claimed ownership of blue in general. Changing the logo color was a concession, not a legal requirement.

3. “...or the use of ‘rays;’”: Correct. Light rays are common design elements. The Church likely cannot own “rays” generically. 

4. “...push back at the effort to improperly control language and branding that The Church does not have a right to control via intellectual property rights.”: This is, I think, the weakest part. I don't think the Church is seeking to improperly control language. It is enforcing registered trademarks against what it views as confusing commercial use. This is a core function of trademark law. Courts routinely uphold similar enforcement by religious organizations. The First Amendment protects descriptive/nominative fair use, but it does not give unlimited rights to use someone else’s registered mark in a confusing way.

So the above statement conflates A) Generic/descriptive use (protected) and B) Commercial branding that causes confusion (protectable by the Church).  As I understand it, the Church has legitimate trademark rights and is using them in a standard way. Mormon Stories is pushing back on principle, which is their right, but the legal merits may end up favoring the Church on the core branding/name issues.

Quote

Why now?

• “We are as perplexed as anyone – we are still wondering why The Church suddenly expressed trademark and copyright concerns despite 20 years of having no branding objections to Mormon Stories podcast,” Dehlin said.

I suspect that ongoing consumer confusion was the culprit.

And who knows?  Perhaps Pres. Nelson, Monson and Hinckley were less willing to resort to litigation as compared to Pres. Oaks (who has a legal background).

Quote

• “The Church’s simple statement about ‘public questions and ongoing confusion’ does not resonate with any actual fact on the ground,” explains Dehlin.

Not sure about that.  See, e.g., here:

Church of Jesus Christ files trademark complaint against podcaster for alleged imitation of brands

Quote

The lawsuit claims Dehlin willfully and knowingly created confusion by using logos and marks similar to the church’s and by using copyrighted church photographs.
...

The church’s belief that ongoing confusion does exist led the manager of its Intellectual Property Office to send Dehlin a letter in November with the church’s concerns.

“The church has an obligation to protect its trademarks as unique identifiers to prevent confusion about what is and isn’t official church content,” the manager wrote, according to an exhibit included with the lawsuit.
...
 

The church manager stated that the request was related solely to Dehlin’s use of the church’s intellectual property or design elements that created confusion.

“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 manager wrote. “Our request is that you update elements of your branding to ensure viewers can distinguish your content from church content.”

The church stated in its Friday post that it is not attempting to silence a critic.

“People are free to express support for or criticism of the church and its teachings,” the church stated. “This case does not concern the content of the podcast. It concerns preventing confusion about source and affiliation.”

The church’s goal was to resolve the issues privately and amicably, according to the Friday post.

In December 2022, Mormon Stories changed the color of its logo to blue. Combined with the church’s light-rays design marks, the logo created confusion by imitating the church’s design elements, according to the lawsuit.

Salon:

Mormons will regret suing an ex-member

Quote

Earlier this week Dehlin appeared on the YouTube show of Alyssa Grenfell, another popular ex-Mormon content creator, and the two cast doubt on claims of the LDS church that people are confused about the nature of the “Mormon Stories” podcast, which has also been published in video form for many years. Based on episode titles alone — “Joseph Smith Pursues Teenage Girls in Nauvoo” and “Graduated BYU and Resigned Immediately” are just two examples — the show reads as critical even at a quick glance. This point is underscored in the lawsuit itself, which shows any listener confusion was temporary. “It only took one episode to know it was absolutely not friendly toward the church,” said one person. “I quickly realized” that it “was anti content,” said another.

So there was confusion, but it was temporary?

Exhibit 2 to the Complaint (Link) shows that MS used quite a few copyrighted images (24 pages worth).

Exhibit 4 (Link) sure seems to show that MS was working hard to mimic the Church's vibe. 

As for the Complaint itself (Link) :

Quote

“'The Church’s simple statement about ‘public questions and ongoing confusion’ does not resonate with any actual fact on the ground,' explains Dehlin."

I wonder how he reconciles this statement with paragraph 54 of the Complaint.

Quote

• Whatever the motivations are, the Church’s sudden enforcement efforts against podcasters in November 2025 and President Dallin H. Oaks’ instruction to Church members to beware of unauthorized podcasts in January 2026 show that the Church has taken a heightened interest in Mormon-themed podcasting.

Or, perhaps, its interest is in protecting its copyright/trademark rights, and in addressing consumer confusion that Mr. Dehlin appears to have intentionally sought out.

Quote

What about the term “Mormon”?

• The Church has expressly abandoned the use of “Mormon” as a trademark or branding word for The Church.

"{E}xpressly abandoned."  Not quite sure how to square this with "Exhibit 1" to the Complaint:

Hard to figure out what set of facts Mr. Dehlin is working from here.

Quote

• “We believe The Church does not own trademark rights relating to the use of “Mormon” in any way, and many of its trademark registrations are properly considered invalid due to its abandonment and the inconsistent positions it has taken in public and with the trademark office.

Same as above.  And who is quoting whom here?

Quote

• “There is no use of “Mormon” that should require The Church’s permission, and we believe The Church’s attempt to exercise ownership and control over that word is inappropriate and raises serious First Amendment concerns extending beyond just Mormon Stories.”
• The public has no trouble distinguishing official Church materials from independent commentary, such as that found on “Mormon Stories” podcast. We have not experienced any evidence that supports The Church’s allegations of confusion. We have also made more than reasonable efforts since our founding to clarify our independence from The LDS Church.

Again, see paragraph 54 of the Complaint.

Quote

• We do not use “Mormon” to indicate official connection to The Church, and neither do any of the other hundreds of businesses, non-profits, churches, or operations that use the word.

About Open Stories Foundation: Our mission is to promote understanding, healing, growth, and community for people experiencing or impacted by religious transitions.

I dunno.  Take a look at the Complaint and its exhibits.  Seems like the Church has presented a prima facie case for "confusion" by extensive use of copyrighted images and distinctive color and design schemes, etc.

Also, it looks like just today MS filed a Motion to Dismiss (Link).

No time to analyze in detail, but my preliminary assessment is that the Motion will mostly or entirely fail.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Edited June 22 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/18/2026 at 10:02 AM, smac97 said:

A former member of this board (and a classmate of mine) represented FAIR in this lawsuit, and he did a great job.

Thanks,

-Smac

then-Judge [and now Justice] Gorsuch was on the three-judge panel that decided the case, too!  No wonder it was such a good decision!     

[smac97]

MS Press Release:

Longtime “Mormon Stories” Podcaster Responds to LDS Church Lawsuit. Raises First Amendment and Trademark Questions (Press Release)

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY- (June 22, 2026) – Mormon Stories Podcast and the Open Stories Foundation today filed their response (link here) to a lawsuit brought by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, arguing that The Church is attempting to use trademark and copyright law to restrict lawful commentary about Mormonism and control usage of the word “Mormon.”

The link goes to the "Answer and Counterclaim."  The "Answer" part includes admissions and denials (admitting some of the allegations in the Complaint, denying others), and also "Affirmative Defenses" (defenses that must be specified or else they are waived).  The tenth one is interesting: "Fraud on the Trademark Office."  The Counterclaims are for 1) Declaratory Judgment (No Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114)), 2) Declaratory Judgment (No Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125)), 3) Declaratory Judgment (No Common Law Trademark Infringement)), 4) Declaratory Judgment (no Copyright Infringement)), 5) "Cancellation of Reg. No. 3,239,919 for MORMON," 6) "Cancellation of Reg. No. 3,715,744 for MORMON.ORG," 7) "Cancellation of Reg. Nos. 2,883,572; 8,018,073; 7,840,811; 7,840,809; 7,840,810; and 7,822,271 for BOOK OF MORMON marks"), 8 ) "Alternative Cancellation of Reg. No. 7,840,811 for BOOK OF MORMON STORIES," 9) "Cancellation of Reg. No. 5,020,309 for MORMON CHANNEL," 10) "Cancellation of Reg. No. 5,020,314 for MORMON MESSAGES," 11) "Cancellation of Reg. Nos. 2,766,231 & 2,913,694 for MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR."

Complex legalese.

Quote

The lawsuit, filed in April, targets Mormon Stories, one of the longest-running independent podcasts covering Mormon culture, history, and lived experiences. Founded by Dr. John Dehlin more than two decades ago, Mormon Stories has published thousands of interviews with current and former Church members, historians, scholars, and others discussing Mormon life and belief.

Despite being fully aware and familiar with Mormon Stories and its creator and host, the LDS Church never once suggested a problem with the branding of Mormon Stories or The Church’s trademark or copyright rights. In fact, prior to The Church’s recent and unexpected intellectual property enforcement efforts, the only concern The Church ever expressed about Mormon Stories related to the content, opinions, and viewpoints presented on the podcast.

In its filing, Mormon Stories highlights the troubling inconsistency between the LDS Church’s years-long effort to publicly distance itself from the term “Mormon” while simultaneously urging the United States Trademark Office to renew its “Mormon”-styled trademark registrations, presumably for purposes of exercising control over how “Mormon” is used through enforcement actions like the lawsuit they filed against us.

"Presumably."

Quote

“The LDS Church does not own the word ‘Mormon,’ and it should not be allowed to use intellectual property law to control how people discuss Mormon culture, history, doctrine, or lived experience,” said Dehlin. “This case raises important questions that extend well beyond Mormon Stories Podcast.”

According to today’s filing, Mormon Stories Podcast and the Open Stories Foundation have included disclaimers indicating its clear independence from The LDS Church since its founding. Mormon Stories’ use of the color blue and “rays” in its branding began well over a decade ago, and did not begin around 2022 as suggested by the Church’s claims. But, to avoid expensive litigation, Mormon Stories and the Open Stories Foundation engaged in months of mediation after first being contacted by The Church in late 2025, and agreed to numerous changes requested by Church representatives, including modifications to branding, disclaimers, logos, and imagery.

“We made substantial changes in good faith because we believed reasonable compromise could resolve this matter,” Dehlin said. “We were surprised to learn that despite accepting most of The Church’s requested changes, litigation would proceed. It feels like we were the only ones making compromises, and The Church took an all-or-nothing, one-sided approach to mediation, which included unreasonable demands. It is also very disappointing that The Church chose to publicly mischaracterize what happened in mediation.”

The response also argues that The Church’s claims raise broader concerns for independent publishers, podcasters, bloggers, businesses, churches, and nonprofit organizations that use the word “Mormon” descriptively to discuss the faith, culture, and community.

At issue is whether trademark law can be used to impose restrictions on an independent commentary platform that has operated openly for more than 20 years while repeatedly making clear that it is not affiliated with The Church.

Mormon Stories intends to vigorously defend itself while continuing its mission of providing a platform for open and honest conversations about Mormonism from diverse viewpoints.

For more information, please see detailed Q&A.

Interesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

From @smac97's link:

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY- (June 22, 2026) – Mormon Stories Podcast and the Open Stories Foundation today filed their response (link here) to a lawsuit brought by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, arguing that The Church is attempting to use trademark and copyright law to restrict lawful commentary about Mormonism and control usage of the word “Mormon.”

Au contraire!  Use the word "Mormon" all you want, comment "lawfully" all you want, just don't use the word and don't comment in ways that infringe on the Trademarks of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or in ways that are apt to create confusion about whether your views represent, in any way, the positions of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Quote

The response also argues that The Church’s claims raise broader concerns for independent publishers, podcasters, bloggers, businesses, churches, and nonprofit organizations that use the word “Mormon” descriptively to discuss the faith, culture, and community.

At the risk of repeating myself, again, Au contraire!  Use the word "Mormon" descriptively all you want, just don't use it in ways that infringe on the Trademarks of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or in ways that are apt to create confusion about whether your views represent, in any way, the positions of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[california boy]

I am going to quote this summary of John Dehlin's lawyers response because I find it hard to follow exactly what he is saying when it is sliced up so much.

 

Summary of Affirmative Defenses

1. "Laches and Aquiescence". This is a valid defense in trademark cases. Laches is a word that goes back to latin roots. In the law it's been used in English for about 900 years meaning negligence in the performance of a legal duty. If the party holding the trademark waits too long to act then they can't try to enforce the trademark now. A party over time may invest a lot in their brand and it's not then deemed allowed to come in after that long term investment and try to enforce a trademark.

The document goes over how Mormon Stories has been in existence since 2005 (more than 20 years) and gives evidence that higher ups in the church knew about it (meetings between John and Apostle Holland for example).

2. Prior Use by Mormon Stories. John started the podcast in 2005. The church didn't get a trademark on Mormon for education until 2007. John has priority of use.

3. Genericness of the word "Mormon". Shouldn't be trademarked.

4. Fair Use of the copyrighted images. The OSF response says that 48 of the 51 images are available for free on the PR page of the church where the church says news media can use them. They claim all the images were used strictly for commentary and criticism which is a defense under fair use.

 

Quote

 

Summary of Counterclaims

1. OSF and John Dehlin ask the court to cancel 11 different trademarks the church has registered.

• Mormon (1 trademark)

• Book of Mormon & Book of Mormon Stories ( 6 trademarks)

• Mormon Channel (1 trademark)

• Mormon Messages (1 trademark)

• Mormon Tabernacle Choir (2 trademarks)

They claim evidence of abandonment of all of them. They also give evidence of fraud and misrepresentation in sworn statements to the US Patent and Trademark Office where the church has made recent submissions that falsely and fraudulent claim they are still using these names. For example in 2005 they submitted a CD case cover from 2005 for that had the words "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" as if it were recent. They submitted a concert program from 2023 for a "Mormon Tabernacle Choir Alumni" live Christmas Concert. While all public materials and concerts referred to them as the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. This was their "Specimen of Use" to document they still were actively using the name "Mormon Tabernacle Choir". What a bunch of liars the LDS Church is.

2. In the counterclaims they discuss the public purging of the word Mormon while submitting false declarations to the USPTO to maintain registrations. They discuss how the church president said calling the church by the name Mormon is a "victory for satan".

They claim the Deseret Book product page for the choir CD was actually an edited altered specimen for their filing. The LDS Church appears to be dishonest here.

3. They try to take apart the churches examples of consumer confusion. The church lawsuit had comments on social media. The defense exposes these as deceptive. They discuss how they were for non-Mormon Stories content. That they were often taken out of context. Of the comments taken from Mormon Stories channel pages, the OSF lawyers contend none of them are examples of confusion.

4. They discuss the good faith efforts by John to immediately respond in November 2025 and show emails where the church kept moving the goal posts and asking for more and quickly then saying it needed to go to mitigation.

The OSF lawyers say the Church's press release was deceptive and made false statements.

"Worse yet, as quoted below, the Church falsely stated that Defendants refused to adopt a disclaimer, leaving the public with the mistaken impression that Defendants were unwilling to do so. The Church's deceptive press release resulted in numerous online comments labeling Dehlin as deceitful and even threatening comments directed toward Dehlin, such as people hoping that Delhin is squashed like a cockroach or threatening Dehlin with something far worse than a lawsuit."

They show the leaked document from years ago showing John Dehlin as one of the "Issues and Ideas Leading People Away from the Gospel". Essentially their enemies list from 2015.

What is OSF and John asking for?

• Dismiss the complaint with prejudice in favor of the defendants.

• Deny all requests by the Plaintiffs.

• Declare the defendants didn't infringe trademarks or copyrights

• Declare the use of copyrighted images to be fair use.

• Directing the cancelation of the 11 Trademarks discussed

• Declare that the Plaintiff has abondoned trademark rights in the term "Mormon"

• Judgement that the Plaintiffs trademark infringement claims are barred by laches, estoppel and acquiescence. (They waited too long).

• Judgement that the copyright infringement claims are barred by laches, estoppel, acquiescence and statute of limitations. (They waited too long).

• Declare that the church has engaged in trademark and copyright misuse.

• Enjoining the church from misusing the Church's trademark rights and copyrights to interfere with John's podcast and other operations.

• That the judge declare this is an exceptional case and award attorneys' fees and costs (apparently allowed under federal law).

• And a final catch all to award OSF and John further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

 

 

I think there are some very valid points his lawyers bring up especially on abandonment issues and waiting too long to start litigating and not going after other companies/individuals using its trademarks.   The musical "Book of Mormon" that premiered over a decade ago is very solid evidence of that.  And the church can't claim they didn't know it was going on since it placed ads in the programs.  

 

The whole campaign by President Nelson to eliminate the use of the word Mormon I think is also pretty difficult point to defend that the church didn't actively try to abandon the trademark.  If a company holds a trademark, the have to actively make an effort to enforce that trademark or they loose it.  A good example of that is Venetian Blinds.  Originally that name was a trademark name, but the use of the name became a common term for al blinds in that style.  When they tried to take back it's usage, it was denied.  Xerox had a similar problem and almost lost the trademark.  Everyone started saying, just Xerox that or I have a Xerox.  Every copy machine was referred to as a Xerox.  The company ended up spending millions on advertisements centered around, it isn't a Xerox, it is a copy.  Eventually people did change habits and started calling it a copy machine.  They retained the trademark.  

My guess is the ruling will be mixed.

 

 

Upvote131Downvote50Go to commentsRepost

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/12/2026 at 3:06 PM, Calm said:

What does this mean “dead”?

Remember, as Miracle Max of The Princess Bride fame told us, there's a big difference between "mostly dead" and "all dead."  "Mostly dead" is still "slightly alive."  With "all dead," there's only one thing you can do: Go through his pockets and look for loose change.      This concludes this irrelevant, irreverent interruption.  Indeed, apologies for that interruption.  We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming, already in progress!  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Go through his pockets and look for loose change.

Dont forget the shoes if decent quality.

[Stargazer]

On 4/19/2026 at 10:03 AM, The Nehor said:

I have personal knowledge of an attempted trademark take down. A relative of a friend created a “Mormon” dating site and got hit by a threat of a lawsuit for using the term Mormon and possibly other trademark infringements. I am not certain of how good the Church’s case was. On the other hand the guy was very sleazy and ran a lot of scams targeting Church members so I suspect this site also was scummy as hell. From what I heard he sold the site before the case went anywhere so no idea if it went anywhere. The Church does target other sites but no idea how credible their claims usually are.

As for dating sites, my wife and I found each other on LDSSingles.com. It's still around with that name. There's another couple of them, one called TrueLDS.com, and another called LDSDatingSite.com. I have no idea if the Church has contacted them about the use of "LDS." 

Given the difficulty that LDS youth in sparsely-LDS areas have in finding other church members to date, it would be nice if there were a way the church itself could provide a meetup service. But I suppose it would be very risky, liability-wise.

[Rain]

On 6/28/2026 at 5:10 PM, Stargazer said:

As for dating sites, my wife and I found each other on LDSSingles.com. It's still around with that name. There's another couple of them, one called TrueLDS.com, and another called LDSDatingSite.com. I have no idea if the Church has contacted them about the use of "LDS." 

Given the difficulty that LDS youth in sparsely-LDS areas have in finding other church members to date, it would be nice if there were a way the church itself could provide a meetup service. But I suppose it would be very risky, liability-wise.

I think the biggest problem might be how many might think the church approved of their match and therefore God approved of them getting married. In a non-affiliated place people may at least think that the system doesn't work or the right person may not have joined, but in a church owned one far too many would think it is God's way and they should be together despite any signals they see that they should not.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

I think the biggest problem might be how many might think the church approved of their match and therefore God approved of them getting married. In a non-affiliated place people may at least think that the system doesn't work or the right person may not have joined, but in a church owned one far too many would think it is God's way and they should be together despite any signals they see that they should not.

That's certainly and scarily possible! 

[Calm]

14 hours ago, Rain said:

I think the biggest problem might be how many might think the church approved of their match and therefore God approved of them getting married. In a non-affiliated place people may at least think that the system doesn't work or the right person may not have joined, but in a church owned one far too many would think it is God's way and they should be together despite any signals they see that they should not.

Or that they were heavily vetted, which would be impossible without charging major money.