Trademark infringement case against Open Stories Foundation

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, webbles said:

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

Dehlin did change it to orange iirc when he was working with the Church to settle.  Just making that observation that it might have been mentioned by the Church in the negotiations.  Would be interesting if they didn’t, but Dehlin changed it on hs own as that suggests o me he understood it as contributing to confusing.  And given all the blues out there they could have chosen from, seems intentional.

Edited Saturday at 10:46 PM by Calm

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

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. 

I was being a little sarcastic since your hypothetical was really extreme.  You mentioned people that do this and then brag about it.  So those people would be known.  But I really don't see this happening at all.  One, I doubt Dehlin would want to ban temple endowed people from the jury since that would ban people like you who would probably vote for him.  I suspect that most of those that are for Dehlin once went through the temple.  So banning on that pretext is a really bad idea for him.  And discussing religion (such as temple covenants) in jury selection is not allowed.  The lawyer would ask other questions to tease out if a person is for or against Dehlin from the beginning and that would be a much better way than doing a blanket ban on temple endowed people.

[webbles]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Dehlin did change it to orange iirc when he was working with the Church to settle.  Just making that observation that it might have been mentioned by the Church in the negotiations.  Would be interesting if they didn’t, but Dehlin changed it on hs own as that suggests o me he understood it as contributing to confusing.  And given all the blues out there they could have chosen from, seems intentional.

When I look at the icons from the initial argument (page 2 of https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.1.0.pdf), I don't think his color is that close to the church's logos.  His is more blue compared to the others.  But yeah, his color change after mediation does make it feel like the church felt the blue was important.  I just don't think they have a trademarked blue and if he just had a blue logo that was identical color to one of the church's icons but said "Open Stories", I don't think the color would have triggered this response.

[Notatbm]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Dehlin did change it to orange iirc when he was working with the Church to settle.  Just making that observation that it might have been mentioned by the Church in the negotiations.  Would be interesting if they didn’t, but Dehlin changed it on hs own as that suggests o me he understood it as contributing to confusing.  And given all the blues out there they could have chosen from, seems intentional.

The church cant even decide which shade of blue to use. Here are a few samples (with MS included) from the lawsuit. I suppose another questions may be about the light rays. Does the church feel they own a right to uses of any light rays or just rays that look the same as what the church uses in some of its logos? If that is the case, the rays on the MS logo do not match the ones used by the church. 
 

 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/04/19/church-of-jesus-christ-files-trademark-complaint-against-podcaster-for-alleged-imitation-of-brands/

 

[webbles]

There's a podcast from Dehlin about the podcast that had the church's lawyer.  I spent the time to listen to it.  It was interesting to hear his point of view.  But I think there were several things that were confusing.

He and the guest (Meggan) talk about how they think the church was acting in bad faith.  That when they sent the first email, they were already planning on destroying him but didn't want to announce it.  He says he complied with the first email and was surprised by the request to go to mediation because he had already done everything that was asked.  And then the mediation surprised him by asking for more things.  And then the lawsuit was filed.  Each time, he was complying and just feels like the church never was going to accept his compliance.  His evidence is that the verbal disclaimer wasn't asked for in the initial email and since that is what they are demanding now, it obviously shows that they were acting in bad faith.  The problem, I see, with that reasoning is that the initial email talks about all the marks, which includes "Mormon".  The email asked him to "remove and discontinue" all trademarks (which includes "Mormon") and make it so that visitors know it isn't affiliated with the church.  So, from the very beginning, the church asked him to rename Mormon Stories and do things to reduce confusion.  His initial response didn't reduce the confusion.  He only did a few minor updates.  So the church went to mediation (at their own expense) to figure out what could be done to reduce confusion.  My guess is that Dehlin and Meggan just assume that Mormon can't be a trademark and so don't see that ask in the initial email.  You can see the entire email chain at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.42.2.pdf and the final email after mediation https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.42.3.pdf.

He talks about he never intentionally tried to mimic the church's design.  He instead hired some designers to make his logo and banner.  And that could be 100% true but it doesn't have any impact on trademark infringement.  No intent is needed.

He also talks about the Christus image in his banner and thinks it might not even be the church's logo and so it isn't copyright infringement.  But the church does own that image.  It has 2 versions of it.  One that is in the logo and one that is by itself (https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/siebel_VA002486714).  Yes, the physical Christus statue doesn't have a copyright, but any pictures or drawings of it have their own separate copyright.

He also thinks the banner is obviously not trademark infringement because: it contains the word "Mormon", it has his face, and the faces of some of the most high profile excommunicated members.  How could "anybody who has a brain" think that the banner shows that the church was affiliated with the podcast.  But he is missing the point.  He knows these people because he is in that circle.  If I asked my wife and other family members if they recognized those faces, I doubt less than 25% would know them.  And these are all LDS.  If I asked a non-member, I would expect the number to be less than 10%.  The word "Mormon" means the church in the common sense.  So, a non-member who sees something with the word Mormon, a doctor, and some nice faces has no way to realize that it isn't connected to the church.

He thinks the church is trying to protect members by adding the disclaimer.  But since all members already know he is critical of the church (doubtful but I'll concede that), then there is no confusion.  Except the consumers aren't just members of the church but non-members.  And they don't know him.  Dehlin is so focused on how the confusion impacts members, he is missing the vast majority of people that would be confused.

[webbles]

5 hours ago, Notatbm said:

The church cant even decide which shade of blue to use. Here are a few samples (with MS included) from the lawsuit. I suppose another questions may be about the light rays. Does the church feel they own a right to uses of any light rays or just rays that look the same as what the church uses in some of its logos? If that is the case, the rays on the MS logo do not match the ones used by the church. 
 

 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/04/19/church-of-jesus-christ-files-trademark-complaint-against-podcaster-for-alleged-imitation-of-brands/

 

For the Lanham Act, it doesn't have to be 100% identical.  The legal definition is "Likelihood of Confusion".  And there are several factors that are at play.  The fact that it is blue, has the word "Mormon", and has light rays that are angled similarly could cause confusion for consumers (both mormons and non-mormons).  If you showed that list to a group of non-mormons and asked them to pick out the icon that is NOT affiliated with the church, do you think they would pick the "Mormon Stories" one?

https://www.reuters.com/practical-law-the-journal/litigation/trademark-litigation-likelihood-confusion-2023-03-01/ seems to be a decent rundown on the mechanism.  It isn't short but I think it explains the various angles that are involved.  It is a bit complicated because they look at a whole bunch of things.

[Notatbm]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

For the Lanham Act, it doesn't have to be 100% identical.  The legal definition is "Likelihood of Confusion".  And there are several factors that are at play.  The fact that it is blue, has the word "Mormon", and has light rays that are angled similarly could cause confusion for consumers (both mormons and non-mormons).  If you showed that list to a group of non-mormons and asked them to pick out the icon that is NOT affiliated with the church, do you think they would pick the "Mormon Stories" one?

https://www.reuters.com/practical-law-the-journal/litigation/trademark-litigation-likelihood-confusion-2023-03-01/ seems to be a decent rundown on the mechanism.  It isn't short but I think it explains the various angles that are involved.  It is a bit complicated because they look at a whole bunch of things.

They would have trouble with this icon as well. Is it affiliated with the church? I dont see these guys getting sued and they are obviously playing the Mormon ooops I mean the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints card with all the missionaries and their name tags. 

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, webbles said:

But since all members already know he is critical of the church (doubtful but I'll concede that), then there is no confusion. 

Very doubtful.

Does he qualify that as “if they have heard of me, they know I am critical”? (Most won’t have heard of him, I bet.) Because that makes more sense to me and might even be right, though I suspect it’s more significant majority rather than absolute all.  He had been used as a source by media and they don’t always present him as a critic or former member iirc, so it’s possible they don’t know that side of what he does.  

Edited yesterday at 04:55 AM by Calm

[webbles]

8 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

They would have trouble with this icon as well. Is it affiliated with the church? I dont see these guys getting sued and they are obviously playing the Mormon ooops I mean the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints card with all the missionaries and their name tags. 

Can you be more specific on how you feel that causes "Likelihood of Confusion"?  Which trademarks of the church is being used or mimic'ed?  What trade dress of the church is being used or mimic'ed?  I'm having a hard time seeing anything that would trigger a likelihood of confusion.  If that was an actual church owned page, I would be shocked.

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Very doubtful.

Does he qualify that as “if they have heard of me, they know I am critical”? (Most won’t have heard of him, I bet.) Because that makes more sense to me and might even be right, though I suspect it’s more significant majority rather than absolute all.  He had been used as a source by media and they don’t always present him as a critic or former member iirc, so it’s possible they don’t know that side of what he does.  

He doesn't qualify it that way.  He kind of says this idea twice.

One time, he is talking about the banner and basically says that it is obvious that the banner wasn't trying to deceive any one because it has his face and 10-15 of the most "well-known apostates".  So, his picture and the other pictures are enough to know the podcast is critical of the church.

The other time, he is talking about how the church is trying to protect the members from listening to him and how nobody would look at him with his beard and think it was run by the church.  He says that any active faithful member of the church would only need 2 minutes to look at the title, thumbnail, or listen to the podcast to know it is critical of the church.

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Can you be more specific on how you feel that causes "Likelihood of Confusion"?  Which trademarks of the church is being used or mimic'ed?  What trade dress of the church is being used or mimic'ed?  I'm having a hard time seeing anything that would trigger a likelihood of confusion.  If that was an actual church owned page, I would be shocked.

You might be shocked, but an unsuspecting non member who just sees hundreds if not thousands  of pictures of lds missionaries, books of Mormon and background shots of temples just may think the site is owned by the Mormon church. I mean everyone knows what Mormon missionaries look like. 
 

besides that blue circle and block font just screams “ Mormon church.” Doesn’t it?

Edited yesterday at 06:05 AM by Notatbm

[webbles]

7 hours ago, Notatbm said:

You might be shocked, but an unsuspecting non member who just sees hundreds if not thousands  of pictures of lds missionaries, books of Mormon and background shots of temples just may think the site is owned by the Mormon church. I mean everyone knows what Mormon missionaries look like. 
 

besides that blue circle and block font just screams “ Mormon church.” Doesn’t it?

The Lanham Act is only for trademarks.  A trademark can be a registered trademark or an unregistered trademark.  Which trademark of the church (either registered or unregistered) do you see in that image that is causing the confusion?  If there isn't a trademark, then there is no Lanham Act case, no likelihood of confusion.

Here's my analysis.

1) The church doesn't have a trademark that is related to "Missionaries Coming Soon", either registered or unregistered.  The term "missionaries" is a very generic term that lots of religions and use.  Unlike Mormon which is both a registered trademark (in geneology and educational services) and an unregistered trademark (the church has used the Mormon term in a lot of different contexts).

2) None of the photos are copyrighted or trademarked either.  They all appear to be personal photos.  None of them contain temples.  None of them contain missionary badges.  Only one of them contains a Book of Mormon and it is really fuzzy and not easy to tell.  No trademark or trade dress.

3) The church doesn't have a trademark on a blue circle or block font, either registered or unregistered.  I don't know why you keep thinking it does.  Is there a trademark filing that I'm missing that shows the church owns those trademarks.  That would be impressive.

So, since the only possible trademark/tradedress is the Book of Mormon that is really fuzzy and hard to read, I don't see how this would trigger a Lanham Act violation.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, webbles said:

So, since the only possible trademark/tradedress is the Book of Mormon that is really fuzzy and hard to read, I don't see how this would trigger a Lanham Act violation.

Confusion, in and of itself, is not grounds for a lawsuit, iow?  Correct?  
 

The Church/Dehlin lawsuit is focusing on trademark and tradedress issues as well as copyright?
 

Not a lawyer and lazy today, so resorted to AI to list possibilities of confusion because I got curious.

Quote

• Trademark infringement / unfair competition — the most obvious one when a name, logo, branding, or other identifier makes consumers likely to think the sites are affiliated.
• Cybersquatting — generally involving a domain name registered or used in bad faith to exploit another party’s trademark.
• False advertising — if a site makes false or misleading claims that cause consumers to believe it is another business or that the businesses are affiliated.
• Passing off / palming off — presenting one’s goods or services as those of someone else. This can overlap substantially with trademark law.
• Trade dress infringement — in some circumstances, copying the distinctive visual appearance or presentation of a business in a way likely to cause confusion.
• Copyright infringement — if the website copied protected text, photographs, graphics, software, or other copyrighted material. Confusion isn’t normally the required element, though.
• Defamation — if the issue involves false statements about another business or person. Again, ordinary consumer confusion isn’t enough.
• Contract-related claims — for example, if someone agreed not to use a particular name or website identity and then violated the agreement.
• State unfair-competition statutes — states have their own causes of action that can sometimes reach conduct beyond a straightforward federal trademark claim.

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Calm

[Notatbm]

If this is accurate, it looks like church lawyers lied in their filing against Mormon Stories:
 

 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Confusion, in and of itself, is not grounds for a lawsuit, iow?  Correct?  
 

The Church/Dehlin lawsuit is focusing on trademark and tradedress issues as well as copyright?
 

Not a lawyer and lazy today, so resorted to AI to list possibilities of confusion because I got curious.

 

Confusion is grounds for a Lanham Act lawsuit.  But it has to be confusion around a trademark (either registered or unregistered).

The Church/Dehlin lawsuit includes both Lanham Act confusion, Lanham Act trademark infringement, and copyright infringement.

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

If this is accurate, it looks like church lawyers lied in their filing against Mormon Stories:
 

 

These hyperbolic AI-generates splash images are really getting old.

A Grok summary of this episode (from the auto-generated transcript) :

Quote

Summary: A critic podcast (Radio Free Mormon with Bill and others) argues that an August 20 LDS Church court filing against John Dehlin misquotes a 2022 Mormon Stories clip and treats “I thought this would be faith-promoting” as if it were “I thought this was an official Church show.”

What the filing said (as they quote it)

The Church wrote that it will prove people were confused by Dehlin’s use of Church IP: they start Mormon Stories thinking it is church-affiliated, then learn it is not. As support it cites a 2022 episode: a guest (Tommy) supposedly began listening because he believed the show was church-affiliated; Dehlin says that is not why he named it, then “confesses” maybe it was a little bit why.

The distinction the hosts insist on

1. Official / Church-produced podcasts (Saints, Joseph Smith Papers, conference podcasts, etc.).
2. Independent but faithful podcasts (Jacob Hansen, FAIR-adjacent shows, Jasmine, etc.).

Trademark-style “affiliation,” they say, is (1), not (2). Expecting a faithful show is not the same as thinking Salt Lake produced it.

What they play from the actual clip (Tommy on Mormon Stories, Oct. 25, 2022; Church’s timestamp ~1:36:50)
Tommy, a few months off a mission, searched “Mormon” in Apple Podcasts, saw Mormon Stories, thought “perfect, stories about Mormons.” First episode he hit was 2015’s “Losing Mormon Millennials” (Sam Young / Tanner). He expected faith-promoting content about stopping the loss of millennials (he knew Sam as a faithful millennial blogger). After an hour or two he was angry: it was an “ex-Mormon story,” not a “Mormon story.” He then avoided the show.

Dehlin’s aside — “that was not why I named it” / “okay, maybe it was a little bit” — is, on this playback, a joke about the name meaning “stories about Mormons,” not an admission that he branded the show as official Church media.

Hosts say neither Tommy nor Dehlin says “church-produced,” “church-affiliated,” or “I thought this came from the Church.” Tommy’s complaint is genre and outcome (faith-promoting vs. exit story), not source.

They also note the 2015 episode Tommy heard opens with: Mormon Stories is a production of the Open Stories Foundation, listener-supported, donate at Mormon*******.*** — which they treat as an on-the-nose disclaimer.

Their legal/PR conclusion

This clip is footnoted as if it were strong proof of intentional affiliation confusion. On the full audio, they argue the Church needs the less natural reading of both speakers. They call the brief’s wording a misrepresentation, criticize Jasmine for repeating the claim with silent/out-of-context bites, and float sanctions or bar complaints. They also say “soon discovered it wasn’t what they were seeking” undercuts lasting confusion: listeners figure it out quickly.

What this summary does not settle
Whether other “hundreds of receipts” exist, whether the overall trademark case is strong, or whether a court would treat the brief as sanctionable. The episode only litigates this cited anecdote and the affiliated-vs.-faithful slide.

"They also say 'soon discovered it wasn’t what they were seeking” undercuts lasting confusion: listeners figure it out quickly."  In other words, some folks were confused initially.  Not sure how this helps MS.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Notatbm]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

These hyperbolic AI-generates splash images are really getting old.

A Grok summary of this episode (from the auto-generated transcript) :

"They also say 'soon discovered it wasn’t what they were seeking” undercuts lasting confusion: listeners figure it out quickly."  In other words, some folks were confused initially.  Not sure how this helps MS.

Thanks,

-Smac

The filing to the court itself cites statements that were never made in the ms episode they were discussing. 
 

in my non-lawyer mind I don’t think submitting evidence that doesn’t match what the listener ( the one who was confused) actually said is a good idea because it will be found out. If it was a simple mistake then it would naturally lead one to believe perhaps the lawyer is incompetent… or just dishonest.
 

the listener in question never mentioned anything about thinking the ms episode was produced or owned or affiliated with the church. He stated he thought it would be a faithful or faith promoting (don’t recall exact what he said- it’s on the video I linked) and was disappointed it wasn’t a faithful episode. 
 

Did you listen to it? If so what do you think about what the listener said vs what the church submitted in its filing? It definitely does not match. 
 

Does filing statements with the court that are not true help the church’s case? I don’t see how it can. Certainly doesn’t hurt ms. 

Edited 12 hours ago by Notatbm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

If this is accurate, it looks like church lawyers lied in their filing against Mormon Stories:
 

 

Please summarize what it claims for those of us who don’t watch videos usually or don’t have the patience to in this case.  Added:  I don’t know how I missed smac’s post as it appeared to my brain I was at the end of the thread.

Edited 11 hours ago by Calm

[Notatbm]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

These hyperbolic AI-generates splash images are really getting old.

A Grok summary of this episode (from the auto-generated transcript) :

"They also say 'soon discovered it wasn’t what they were seeking” undercuts lasting confusion: listeners figure it out quickly."  In other words, some folks were confused initially.  Not sure how this helps MS.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is from the church’s filing reference the confusion of a listener: 

“The Church will prove that many have, in fact, been confused by Defendants’ infringement of the Church’s intellectual property. They encounter Mormon Stories and begin to consume its content believing it contains Church-affiliated material, only to discover it is not what they were seeking. And this is intentional. In a 2022 Mormon Stories episode, a guest tells Mr. Dehlin he began listening because he believed Mormon Stories was Church-affiliated. Mr. Dehlin responds: “That was not why I named it that,” but then confesses, “Okay, maybe it was a little bit why I named it that.“

 

if you listen to the episode ( about 13 min mark on linked video. Runs about three min) you will see he definitely did not say what the church lawyers claimed in the filing. 

[Notatbm]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please summarize what it claims for those of us who don’t watch videos usually or don’t have the patience to in this case.

See response to smac. You can listen to the three min clip yourself. 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

If this is accurate, it looks like church lawyers lied in their filing against Mormon Stories:
 

 

The quote from the church's lawyer is the response to the motion to dismiss.  And it says (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.71.0.pdf, page 2):

Quote

The Church will prove that many have, in fact, been confused by Defendants’
infringement of the Church’s intellectual property. They encounter Mormon Stories and
begin to consume its content believing it contains Church-affiliated material, only to
discover it is not what they were seeking. And this is intentional. In a 2022 Mormon Stories
episode, a guest tells Mr. Dehlin he began listening because he believed Mormon Stories
was Church-affiliated. Mr. Dehlin responds: “That was not why I named it that,” but then
confesses, “Okay, maybe it was a little bit why I named it that.”

Dehlin's lawyer noticed this and responded in their response to the response (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.73.0.pdf, page 1):

Quote

The Church continues its effort to falsely paint Defendants as deceptive by misrepresenting
MORMON STORIES episode 1678 and falsely claiming the guest “tells Mr. Dehlin … he believed
Mormon Stories was Church-affiliated.” Opp. at 2. There is a reason the Church did not quote the
guest; he said no such thing. The guest actually said, “I … typed in Mormons, saw Mormon Stories,
and I was like, perfect, stories about Mormons.”2 His first impression was accurate, and nothing
he said suggests a belief the podcast was “Church-affiliated.” The Church’s insinuation that Mr.
Dehlin named the podcast intending to suggest Church affiliation is a fabrication.3

Believing something is “about Mormons” is not a belief that it is “Church-affiliated.” This
improper conflation of uncertainty regarding the content of the podcast with uncertainty about who
sponsors the podcast is a sleight-of-hand and error of law that underlies all the Church’s claims.
The ease with which the Church misrepresents facts to level accusations of deceptive intent at Mr.
Dehlin is troubling and highlights concerns expressed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation about
“the coercive power of dubious trademark claims.” See ECF 70 at 8.

And RFM made the video based on this information.

 

So, it is already in the suit and we'll see what the judge thinks.  I'm not sure that it will have much of an impact at this point since this is an attempt to show that the confusion was intentional (by quoting Dehlin's "admission") but intention is not a requirement for the likelihood of confusion.

[webbles]

And this is the subtitles from what the person actually said on the podcast (so you don't have to actually listen to it):

Quote

Um so I remember uh pretty pretty quickly after my mission
um cuz I I am a big fan of podcasts.
So I went to the podcast app, Apple podcast,
typed in Mormon, saw Mormon Stories, and I was like, "Perfect.
Stories about Mormons." Um and the first one I came across
(Dehlin) That was not why I named it Mormon. Okay, maybe it was a little bit.
And um it it worked.
Um in the first episode I ever uh listened
to, which I was excited at first and then mad.
Like an a an hour or two in was with Sam and Tanner.

 

Edited 12 hours ago by webbles

[Notatbm]

6 minutes ago, webbles said:

The quote from the church's lawyer is the response to the motion to dismiss.  And it says (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.71.0.pdf, page 2):

Dehlin's lawyer noticed this and responded in their response to the response (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.73.0.pdf, page 1):

And RFM made the video based on this information.

 

So, it is already in the suit and we'll see what the judge thinks.  I'm not sure that it will have much of an impact at this point since this is an attempt to show that the confusion was intentional (by quoting Dehlin's "admission") but intention is not a requirement for the likelihood of confusion.

Thanks.. I have not read the ms response yet. You are right.. we will see

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Thanks.. I have not read the ms response yet. You are right.. we will see

I thought more about this and I think that if the judge ignores this evidence (because of the lie, mischaracterization, etc) it weakens the church's arguments a bit.  In their response to the motion to dismiss, they bring up intentional confusion in 2 places.

The first is on whether this should be motion should be subject to Rogers.  An intentional confusion is automatically not subject to Rogers and that would automatically fail the motion to dismiss.  Since this is the church's only evidence at this stage (they say they have more but don't provide any), the judge would have to look at other factors on whether this should be subject to Rogers or not.  I do think the church still has a pretty good argument even without intentional confusion.  But it removes that automatic win.

The second is on laches.  This is where the church has a weak point.  They waited 20 years to bring this up.  Technically, Lanham Act infringement has no time window, but long waits usually are dismissed.  But an intentional confusion bypasses that.  So it wouldn't matter if it was 20 years or 100 years.  Without this intentional confusion, the church's best argument is probably that Mormon Stories changed their branding 3 years ago and that is when they started to trigger confusion.  But that means that everything before 3 years ago is no longer part of this lawsuit, including the name Mormon Stories.  So the lawsuit would continue, but it would be a smaller lawsuit.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, webbles said:

And this is the subtitles from what the person actually said on the podcast (so you don't have to actually listen to it):

 

If that is all he said about it, it’s accurate imo that he doesn’t state he thought it was put out by the Church.  Doesn’t state he didn’t think that either.  Its vague,  therefore imo it’s not supportive of confusing with the Church website.  Dehlin’s response seems to show he intended confusion even if not his primary motivation for the design, but exactly what type of confusion (church affiliation or faithfulness of the site could both be inferred from what little was said) does not appear to be specified by him either.  Will be interesting to see what the judge says.  From what you have posted, this specific evidence doesn’t seem very strong to me.