Trademark infringement case against Open Stories Foundation

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

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.

So you said the rebranding 3 years ago becomes the relevant material.  So only comments by Dehlin or others after the rebranding matter?  
 

Why wouldn’t elements still present in the rebranding matter since the effect is likely cumulative?

Edited yesterday at 03:52 AM by Calm

[webbles]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you said the rebranding 3 years ago becomes the relevant material.  So only comments by Dehlin or others after the rebranding matter?  
 

Why wouldn’t elements still present in the rebranding matter since the effect is likely cumulative?

I believe the 3 year period just affects the type of relief available.  Dehlin couldn't be forced to change the name from Mormon Stories as that name existed longer than 3 years.  But they could get an injunction to never use the color blue or light rays.  And they still could get an injunction to require a verbal disclaimer.

So, comments from earlier than 3 years that shows confusion is probably still ok to be used.  And any element that existed across the boundary (like the name) is still available to be included in the confusion calculation.  And the rebranding could be used as evidence of intentional confusion.  I believe Dehlin where he said he didn't intend confusion, but he didn't do the rebrand himself.  He had hired some designers to do it and they might have intentionally mimic'ed the church's trade dress.  And if that is found during the discovery phase, that would be treated as intentional confusion.