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 September 28 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.

[Stargazer]

On 9/25/2026 at 12:19 AM, 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. 

MS has occasionally had faithful members on. As I recall, Dan Peterson was once the guest, long ago.

I think the main problem is that the appearance of being official may attract someone who is investigating the church, like being taught by the missionaries, and then goes to the internet to find more information. And then gets handed information that causes confusion. There's a verse in D&C 76 that describes this...

These are they who are honorable men of the  earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. (D&C 76:75)

I can attest to this personally, in fact. I often assist the missionaries by participating in online lessons, where they invite me to contribute my own thoughts about what they are teaching, and to bear testimony. In one instance a couple of months ago the investigator in question said that he was going to check out a video about the church he had found but not yet watched. He named the channel, which I immediately recognized (sorry, can't remember which one it was), and cautioned him that the person behind the channel was opposed to the church and he wouldn't learn anything good. He immediately noped out of visiting that channel. The missionaries had no clue about the channel, but fortunately I did.

But the point is, he thought that someone who was claiming to provide information about the church was doing so honestly. There are a number of channels on YouTube whose channel names suggest they are faithful, but they are most decidedly are not. For example, "Mormon News Roundup." 

Edited Thursday at 12:09 PM by Stargazer

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

MS has occasionally had faithful members on. As I recall, Dan Peterson was once the guest, long ago.

Yes, he was. More recently the two former marines from The Stick of Joseph. Covered briefly on this board, they were unflappable in their interview and John Dehlin mildly (only mildly) lost his cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4GUz8YAN4Q

 

[Notatbm]

This is interesting. I watched Jordan’s interview and caught his comment re bad Mormon.  I thought it was a dumb thing to say. This can’t help the church’s case i imagine:

 

https://www.abc4.com/news/wasatch-front/new-filing-mormon-stories-lawsuit-rhoslc-lds-church/amp/

[webbles]

33 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

This is interesting. I watched Jordan’s interview and caught his comment re bad Mormon.  I thought it was a dumb thing to say. This can’t help the church’s case i imagine:

 

https://www.abc4.com/news/wasatch-front/new-filing-mormon-stories-lawsuit-rhoslc-lds-church/amp/

I wish news agencies actually provided the lawsuit files.  They aren't private.  Here's the link to the supplement https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.75.0_1.pdf

 

I wondered the same thing.  But I also wonder if an argument during an actual trademark application is treated differently than a lawsuit for infringement.

I do think the most that comes out of this is an order for the church to rewrite its complaint to not request the trademark on the word "mormon" to not be included.  But there is still the light rays and the other images.

[Notatbm]

41 minutes ago, webbles said:

I wish news agencies actually provided the lawsuit files.  They aren't private.  Here's the link to the supplement https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.75.0_1.pdf

 

I wondered the same thing.  But I also wonder if an argument during an actual trademark application is treated differently than a lawsuit for infringement.

I do think the most that comes out of this is an order for the church to rewrite its complaint to not request the trademark on the word "mormon" to not be included.  But there is still the light rays and the other images.

I think the main issue with this is the contradiction. The trademark deal with bad Mormon the church says that phrase will confuse people. Jordan gets in front of a camera and says no one would be confused by “bad Mormon.”

maybe the church lied in its filing about what it actually believes and was just trying to shut down a very public figure? Even though no one would be confused.

Wouldn’t be the first time church leaders lied and had others carry their water for them… as directed

Edited yesterday at 12:01 AM by Notatbm
Typo

[webbles]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

I wish news agencies actually provided the lawsuit files.  They aren't private.  Here's the link to the supplement https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.75.0_1.pdf

 

I wondered the same thing.  But I also wonder if an argument during an actual trademark application is treated differently than a lawsuit for infringement.

I do think the most that comes out of this is an order for the church to rewrite its complaint to not request the trademark on the word "mormon" to not be included.  But there is still the light rays and the other images.

I was going through the attachments for this latest filing.  It has a nice document which lists basically all of the trademarks with Mormon in it that had opposition filed against it.  See https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.75.4.pdf

Interestingly, The Book of Mormon musical was attempted to be trademarked.  A notice of publication was filed, the church filed an extension of time to oppose, that was granted, there were several of these, and then the trademark was removed.  There is no actual opposition filed.  I didn't think this musical would be trademarked because the church does own the Book of Mormon mark.  But it was attempted and I can't see any reason why it was cancelled.  My guess is that the Broadway company and the church came to some sort of agreement.

Another interesting one is "Yes, I am a Mormon" filed in 2003.  Really similar to the "I'm a Mormon" slogan from 2010.  This was filed by some person and the opposition wasn't from the church.  It was from owner of the trademark "Christian Man Yes I Am".  They felt that "Yes, I am a Mormon" was too similar to theirs and that they don't want to be connected to the Mormons.  I think it is an interesting example of a trademark application not from the church or opposed by the church and with two strings that really aren't that similar.  The only commonality is the phrase "yes I am" which isn't that unique.  The opposition was removed because the two entities came to some sort of agreement and then the trademark itself was abandoned a few months later.

Edited yesterday at 03:38 AM by webbles