Trademark infringement case against Open Stories Foundation

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

They didn't go after him before because his "trade dress" did not formerly mimic the Church's.

Are you sure?  Is that it what was stated, what you observed over the years or a guess?

My memory is people have been confused for a long time about it, but I don’t trust my memory.  

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you sure?  Is that it what was stated, what you observed over the years or a guess?

My memory is people have been confused for a long time about it, but I don’t trust my memory.  

The lawyer in the video that Stargazer posted kind of gives that idea.  And in the latest filing from the church, they talk about laches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)).  Dehlin argues that the case should be thrown out because it came too late (Mormon Stories started in 2005 and the lawsuit is 2026).  But the church argues back that:

Quote

Defendants’ earlier use of MORMON STORIES also does not justify their more
recent misappropriation of the Christus Logo, the Light-Rays Design, and images
belonging to the Church. Instead, the newer, broader, and more egregious misappropriation,
along with growing confusion, negates laches, or at the very least raises factual issues that
cannot be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.71.0.pdf - pages 21-23

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

The lawyer in the video that Stargazer posted kind of gives that idea.  And in the latest filing from the church, they talk about laches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)).  Dehlin argues that the case should be thrown out because it came too late (Mormon Stories started in 2005 and the lawsuit is 2026).  But the church argues back that:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.71.0.pdf - pages 21-23

 

That makes sense.  I can see the confusion increasing and more reporting that directly to the Church when it went from “I expected Mormonstories was about Mormons (meaning active ones)” to “wait, this looks like the Church’s website and it isn’t!” with some indignation plus those who continued to be confused because they weren’t familiar with the Church well enough in doctrine, etc, but knew the promos, website look, and logos, etc..

Edited Thursday at 04:33 AM by Calm

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you sure?  Is that it what was stated, what you observed over the years or a guess?

My memory is people have been confused for a long time about it, but I don’t trust my memory.  

I never paid any attention to the podcast; never watched even one of the episodes. I only said what I said because the attorney in the video stated this. I take him at his word.

[Notatbm]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I never paid any attention to the podcast; never watched even one of the episodes. I only said what I said because the attorney in the video stated this. I take him at his word.

I can’t remember what episode I first listened to. It was about 10 yrs ago or so. No more than five min in there was no doubt it wasn’t approved by the church or ever would be. It wasn’t anti, just the criticism the guest was making would get a recommend revoked in a hurry. Anyone confused by Mormon stories thinking it is lds church approved sponsored or whatever and has listened to more than a half hour of any episode I have ever heard is probably lying. 

Edited Thursday at 11:20 PM by Notatbm

[Notatbm]

On 6/12/2026 at 12:28 PM, Calm said:

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.)

Many of the guests on ms are currently members. Many of them likely will not formally resign their membership… ever. Like myself. bill bennett and other active faithful Mormons appear from time to time on ms. It isn’t truly “ex-Mormon” stories or whatever the church may want it called. 
 

imho if the church insists on counting inactive, non tithe-paying, coffee drinking “members” on the rolls and using those numbers to indicate growth or strength of membership, then Mormon stories is probably a much more accurate descriptor. 
 

 

[webbles]

58 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I can’t remember what episode I first listened to. It was about 10 yrs ago or so. No more than five min in there was no doubt it wasn’t approved by the church or ever would be. It wasn’t anti, just the criticism the guest was making would get a recommend revoked in a hurry. Anyone confused by Mormon stories thinking it is lds church approved sponsored or whatever and has listened to more than a half hour of any episode I have ever heard is probably lying. 

For members or former members, we probably can tell.  But for those who aren't members or don't know that much about the church, they can't tell.  And they might watch it and think that it is what the church teaches, believes, etc.  There was an interesting point in the video that Stargazer posted.  Dehlin had commented on how anyone could think of him being affiliated with the church since it was widely publicized about his excommunication and his actions against the church.  And the lawyer (who is a member) said that before he was involved in this case, he didn't know what Dehlin looked like or his name.  So, just because you and I know Dehlin and know his stance and can see the criticism in the podcasts, that doesn't mean the average person can.

[Notatbm]

So this showed up in my FB feed. Never seen the page before. So I’m super confused here. This group uses a circle which is blue in color… I thought only the Mormon church can do that. I wonder if the church owns this page? It is possible, but then the name of the church is nowhere to be found. Someone here must be able to figure out if this is a church owned page or not. If not, I’m pretty sure they need to get sued by the church. We can’t have any confusion right?? 

[webbles]

8 hours ago, Notatbm said:

So this showed up in my FB feed. Never seen the page before. So I’m super confused here. This group uses a circle which is blue in color… I thought only the Mormon church can do that. I wonder if the church owns this page? It is possible, but then the name of the church is nowhere to be found. Someone here must be able to figure out if this is a church owned page or not. If not, I’m pretty sure they need to get sued by the church. We can’t have any confusion right?? 

It doesn't have the light ray, it doesn't have Mormon or any other related mark.  So, I don't see the confusion.  The blue circle by itself isn't the problem.  The light rays by itself isn't the problem.  The usage of Mormon by itself isn't the problem.

[webbles]

Here's an example of what the Supreme Court ruled could cause confusion.  This is from the Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Daniel's_Properties,_Inc._v._VIP_Products_LLC

The "Bad Spaniels" was a dog toy.  It is not a drink and is not glass.  If you held the two, they don't feel anything like each other.  The Supreme Court ruled that it was a mixture of the bottle shape, the label color, the label font and the "Spaniels" which made it cause confusion.

This is the Supreme Court case that the church is using as its basis.  It was decided in 2023 so it is extremely recent and was a 9-0 ruling.

Edited 8 hours ago by webbles

[Notatbm]

39 minutes ago, webbles said:

It doesn't have the light ray, it doesn't have Mormon or any other related mark.  So, I don't see the confusion.  The blue circle by itself isn't the problem.  The light rays by itself isn't the problem.  The usage of Mormon by itself isn't the problem.

The “bad Mormon” trademark didn’t have combo of any of those things. Didn’t stop the church from going after her. 
 

Edited 8 hours ago by Notatbm

[webbles]

2 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

The “bad Mormon” trademark didn’t have combo of any of those things. Didn’t stop the church from going after her. 
 

As far as I know, the church didn't go after her.  She filed a trademark application and the church filed an opposition to the trademark.  The church didn't sue her for her usage of "Bad Mormon" or send her a cease and desist.  The church just argued that she couldn't get a trademark for it.

[Notatbm]

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

As far as I know, the church didn't go after her.  She filed a trademark application and the church filed an opposition to the trademark.  The church didn't sue her for her usage of "Bad Mormon" or send her a cease and desist.  The church just argued that she couldn't get a trademark for it.

Filing opposition… same difference. Do you think if she didn’t abandon it they would have just let it go or would they have sued her? 
 

im betting they would sue her into bankruptcy

[Notatbm]

47 minutes ago, webbles said:

Here's an example of what the Supreme Court ruled could cause confusion.  This is from the Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Daniel's_Properties,_Inc._v._VIP_Products_LLC

The "Bad Spaniels" was a dog toy.  It is not a drink and is not glass.  If you held the two, they don't feel anything like each other.  The Supreme Court ruled that it was a mixture of the bottle shape, the label color, the label font and the "Spaniels" which made it cause confusion.

This is the Supreme Court case that the church is using as its basis.  It was decided in 2023 so it is extremely recent and was a 9-0 ruling.

Boy brown forman really has a lot of time on their hands. I guess an attorney had to justify his/her existence over that threat to their business. Much like the lds church, brown Forman  is circling the drain and while not in its death throes, it has lost substantial market share. 

[webbles]

1 minute ago, Notatbm said:

Filing opposition… same difference. Do you think if she didn’t abandon it they would have just let it go or would they have sued her? 
 

im betting they would sue her into bankruptcy

If she had gotten a valid trademark from the USPTO, the church would have had a problem with suing her.  Because if she has a trademark, the church can't say she is infringing on their trademark with her own trademark.  That's not how things work.  Also, her book "Bad Mormon" is still published and the church has never attempted to shut it down.  It is protected under the Rogers test.  If she started to create merchandise and use Bad Mormon as a mark without a proper trademark, then yes, the church probably would sue her, similar to what it is doing with Open Stories.  But she isn't use Bad Mormon as a trademark so there is nothing for the church to sue.

And no, filing an opposition to a trademark is not an attack.  If you ever file for a trademark that is anywhere close to another company's trademark, you will get an opposition filed.  That's normal business.  Her company should have expected the opposition filing from day 1.

[Notatbm]

6 minutes ago, webbles said:

If she had gotten a valid trademark from the USPTO, the church would have had a problem with suing her.  Because if she has a trademark, the church can't say she is infringing on their trademark with her own trademark.  That's not how things work.  Also, her book "Bad Mormon" is still published and the church has never attempted to shut it down.  It is protected under the Rogers test.  If she started to create merchandise and use Bad Mormon as a mark without a proper trademark, then yes, the church probably would sue her, similar to what it is doing with Open Stories.  But she isn't use Bad Mormon as a trademark so there is nothing for the church to sue.

And no, filing an opposition to a trademark is not an attack.  If you ever file for a trademark that is anywhere close to another company's trademark, you will get an opposition filed.  That's normal business.  Her company should have expected the opposition filing from day 1.

What trademark does the church own that looks like this one?

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

What trademark does the church own that looks like this one?

https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91281170&pty=OPP&eno=1 is their filing of opposition.  You can read it all there.  And Heather Gay could have continued on with the application.  It was a voluntary removal.  If she had gotten the trademark, she would have been able to use Bad Mormon in all of those things.  And the church's only recourse would be to file a lawsuit to break the trademark (similar to what Open Stories is doing in their counter claim).  And that would have been really hard to win since she already gained the trademark with their opposition previously filed.

Specifically, the trademarks that the church mentioned in their opposition are: "Mormon Messages", "Mormon Channel", "Mormon.org", "Mormon", "Book of Mormon", and "Mormon Tabernacle Choir".

The church did the same thing for "Real Mormon" and "Mormon Royalty" and others.

You could argue that the church has dropped some of those marks, like "Mormon Tabernacle Choir", "Mormon Channel", "Mormon.org", but that is not as simple as pointing to the style guide or the rename.  You have to show that they haven't used the mark anywhere for several years.  I've been following an attempt to break Oracle's trademark of the word "Javascript".  They hardly use it and have not published or sold anything in the last decade or so that deals with Javascript.  Yet, they keep filing renewals and they keep getting those renewals.  There have been several attempts to convince the USPTO that Oracle has abandoned the term but because it is used on 1 or 2 pages on all of the Oracle related sites, they keep winning.

Edited 6 hours ago by webbles

[Notatbm]

50 minutes ago, webbles said:

https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91281170&pty=OPP&eno=1 is their filing of opposition.  You can read it all there.  And Heather Gay could have continued on with the application.  It was a voluntary removal.  If she had gotten the trademark, she would have been able to use Bad Mormon in all of those things.  And the church's only recourse would be to file a lawsuit to break the trademark (similar to what Open Stories is doing in their counter claim).  And that would have been really hard to win since she already gained the trademark with their opposition previously filed.

Specifically, the trademarks that the church mentioned in their opposition are: "Mormon Messages", "Mormon Channel", "Mormon.org", "Mormon", "Book of Mormon", and "Mormon Tabernacle Choir".

The church did the same thing for "Real Mormon" and "Mormon Royalty" and others.

You could argue that the church has dropped some of those marks, like "Mormon Tabernacle Choir", "Mormon Channel", "Mormon.org", but that is not as simple as pointing to the style guide or the rename.  You have to show that they haven't used the mark anywhere for several years.  I've been following an attempt to break Oracle's trademark of the word "Javascript".  They hardly use it and have not published or sold anything in the last decade or so that deals with Javascript.  Yet, they keep filing renewals and they keep getting those renewals.  There have been several attempts to convince the USPTO that Oracle has abandoned the term but because it is used on 1 or 2 pages on all of the Oracle related sites, they keep winning.

"You could argue that the church has dropped some of those marks, like "Mormon Tabernacle Choir", "Mormon Channel", "Mormon.org", but that is not as simple as pointing to the style guide or the rename."

All three of these (bolded) are still trademarked by intellectual reserve. I dont blame them for MOTAB i mean that is a for-profit venture. The rest...meh

So you didnt find any existing LDS trademark that resembles the "bad Mormon" one? So you agree they would have sued her if she didnt withdraw her application? Sounds like they were "going after" her.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

"You could argue that the church has dropped some of those marks, like "Mormon Tabernacle Choir", "Mormon Channel", "Mormon.org", but that is not as simple as pointing to the style guide or the rename."

All three of these (bolded) are still trademarked by intellectual reserve. I dont blame them for MOTAB i mean that is a for-profit venture. The rest...meh

So you didnt find any existing LDS trademark that resembles the "bad Mormon" one? So you agree they would have sued her if she didnt withdraw her application? Sounds like they were "going after" her.

I don't agree that the church would sue her if she had gotten a trademark.  I don't really see why the church would sue her.  Since the church filed an opposition to the USPTO, it is already trying to block the trademark.  If the USPTO still granted that trademark, it gives her a really strong argument against the church.  Any lawsuit they file afterwards is starting on weak footing.  Anything that was already brought up at the USPTO would probably not be allowed in the lawsuit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%26B_Hardware%2C_Inc._v._Hargis_Industries%2C_Inc. was a Supreme Court ruling that says issues argued in front of the USPTO are precluded from district court cases).

[Notatbm]

If this whole mess goes to trial, is there a chance Dehlin will be able to get rid of jurors who profess to be active temple recommend holding members? Reason I ask is because part of the endowment specifically has a person covenanting to consecrate everything to the kingdom of God...to include their very lives. Certainly voting in favor of the church in this case would be protecting the kingdom of god whether the plaintiffs prove their case or not. I know I have family members who would vote like that and also brag about voting that way. Lying for the lord comes to mind.

Jury selection certainly can be an interesting show if it happens. I bet that temple script gets trotted out in selection. 
 

[webbles]

42 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

If this whole mess goes to trial, is there a chance Dehlin will be able to get rid of jurors who profess to be active temple recommend holding members? Reason I ask is because part of the endowment specifically has a person covenanting to consecrate everything to the kingdom of God...to include their very lives. Certainly voting in favor of the church in this case would be protecting the kingdom of god whether the plaintiffs prove their case or not. I know I have family members who would vote like that and also brag about voting that way. Lying for the lord comes to mind.

Jury selection certainly can be an interesting show if it happens. I bet that temple script gets trotted out in selection. 
 

I doubt the temple covenants would be brought up.  But I would think Dehlin would prefer to have believing members on the jury.  I think he would have a harder time convincing non affiliated people that he wasn't causing confusion.

Also, if a voter did do what you say, it would just trigger a redo.

And I really don't see why the temple covenants would be invoked.  Because the worst that could happen to the church is that Mormon Stories continues as it is and the church pays lawyer fees.  There's no protection needed for the church.  Dehlin, on the other hand, could loose a lot.  He needs more protection.

[bluebell]

Just now, webbles said:

I doubt the temple covenants would be brought up.  But I would think Dehlin would prefer to have believing members on the jury.  I think he would have a harder time convincing non affiliated people that he wasn't causing confusion.

Also, if a voter did do what you say, it would just trigger a redo.

And I really don't see why the temple covenants would be invoked.  Because the worst that could happen to the church is that Mormon Stories continues as it is and the church pays lawyer fees.  There's no protection needed for the church.  Dehlin, on the other hand, could loose a lot.  He needs more protection.

I think you are right. Agreeing with everything the church does is different than consecrating our efforts to the kingdom of God.  

[Calm]

6 hours ago, webbles said:

It doesn't have the light ray, it doesn't have Mormon or any other related mark.  So, I don't see the confusion.  The blue circle by itself isn't the problem.  The light rays by itself isn't the problem.  The usage of Mormon by itself isn't the problem.

There is a particular blue tone range as well I call Mormon blue.  This website uses it.  So does FAIR.
 

 I know FAIR got a license to use the stuff similar to the official site, both verbal and visual.  I know several other LDS members’ sites that had to as well.  I assume this board did as well, but can’t remember if Nemesis reported this or not.  

Edited 2 hours ago by Calm

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

Also, if a voter did do what you say, it would just trigger a redo

How would anyone know why the juror voted the way they did? Unless they go  around saying yea dehlin didn’t do anything wrong but I voted against him anyway fetch that guy I don’t see how a redo would be triggered. 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is a particular blue tone range as well I call Mormon blue.  This website uses it.  So does FAIR.
 

 I know FAIR got a license to use the stuff similar to the official site, both verbal and visual.  I know several other LDS members’ sites that had to as well.  I assume this board did as well, but can’t remember if Nemesis reported this or not.  

I tried to see if the church owns a blue trademark but I don't see any.  And going through the lawsuit papers, I don't see any mention of a blue related trademark.  Just the names, light rays, and images.  They do talk about the blue logo and how it looks similar but no mention of a trademark specifically around a blue color.

I do agree that there is a blue tone range but I don't think the church can prevent anyone from using it.