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 1 hour 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 1 hour 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?