Newsroom posts lawsuit filing that rebuts Dehlin’s claim over use of “Mormon”.

[Calm]

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/getting-it-right-clarifying-trademark-branding-concerns

Quote

To help ensure the public understands the facts and the Church’s position in this case, the opening paragraph of the Church’s filing is included below:

This case is not about silencing criticism. The Church’s claims do not target the content of Defendants’ speech at all. Nor is it about ownership or control of the word Mormon. The Church made this clear in its Complaint. Rather, this case is about eliminating the confusion caused by Defendants’ mimicking the Church’s trademarks and using its copyrighted images without permission. Mr. Dehlin can criticize the Church as he chooses, and he can use Mormon in connection with his podcast. But federal law prohibits Defendants from pilfering the Church’s copyrighted images or using its trademarks in ways that are likely to cause people to believe that Defendants or their content are associated with the Church. The First Amendment protects Defendants’ speech; it does not license them to appropriate the Church’s marks and images.

Not sure what his current stance is, but from June:

Quote

 

“The LDS church does not own the word ‘Mormon’, and it should not be allowed to use intellectual property law to control how people discuss Mormon culture, history, doctrine or lived experience,” said Dehlin. “This case raises important questions that extend well beyond [the] Mormon Stories podcast.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/28/lds-church-mormon-lawsuit

Edited 12 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

Not sure I understand this part:

Quote

 

Why now?

Public questions and ongoing confusion about whether “Mormon Stories” is official Church content made it necessary to act.

The ongoing confusion has been since it started from what I have seen.  Maybe they mean something specific by “public questions”?

[Calm]

Trib:

Quote

The show’s logos, fonts, images, color schemes and “other branding” — in combination with its use of “Mormon” in its title — are enough, the church’s attorneys argue, to confuse some into thinking the podcast represents an official product of the global faith.

“This is intentional,” reads the filing, citing an instance in a 2022 episode in which a guest informed host John Dehlin he began listening because he believed it was put out by the church.

The filing describes the podcast host as responding by saying, “‘That was not why I named it that’” before adding, “‘OK, maybe it was a little bit why I named it that.’’’

Not the first time he shot himself in the foot, imo.  
 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/08/20/lds-church-rejects-notion-its-case/

The Trib has the filing embedded.  Can read it on Scribd as well apparently.

Edited 12 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/08/12/aclu-tells-court-toss-out-lds/

Quote

That argument now has the backing of the ACLU and the EFF, which, along with Dehlin, center their arguments on the question of who legally has a right to the “Mormon” name and when.

 

[webbles]

If you want to read all of the filings as they come out, see https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73209567/intellectual-reserve-inc-v-open-stories-foundation/.  It has the ACLU and EFF amicus briefs.  And it has the latest filing from the Church.  The current state is that Dehlin has filed a Motion to Dismiss, the ACLU and EFF filed an amicus brief in support of the motion, and the Church just filed their response to it.  That is what triggered the latest batch of news.

8 hours ago, Calm said:

The ongoing confusion has been since it started from what I have seen.  Maybe they mean something specific by “public questions”?

In the Motion to Dismiss, one of Dehlin's arguments is that this case is long after any statue of limitation.  The term is "latches" for copyright cases and both of the motions (Dehlin's and the Church's) talk about it.  The Church says that it has basically gotten worse.  Starting on page 27 of their motion: (there are images that I can't copy from the pdf so I put <image> to indicate where they would go)

Quote

Mormon Stories began as a small podcast. See 4 McCarthy on Trademarks § 31:19
(“A period of low profile sales by a fledgling business should not be counted toward
laches.”). Its reach has increased significantly in recent years, including since the adoption
of the blue light-rays logo in 2022.7 See id. (“The trademark owner is justified in delaying
the unleashing of litigation until it is seen if the infringing fledgling business or product
line will survive, let alone significantly impact on plaintiff’s trademark rights.”).
The infringement also became more egregious over time with Defendants’ use of
Church-owned or affiliated images, fonts, and colors, all of which (as alleged in the
Complaint) was to intentionally create confusion. Around 2016, the Church adopted a light-
rays motif. “Plaintiffs use the Light-Rays Design Marks in various colors,” but most
prominently in blue. ECF No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 20, 23.
<image>
Defendants followed suit in 2022 when Mormon Stories began using a blue light-
rays logo:
<image>
Id., ¶ 34; cf. 4 McCarthy on Trademarks § 31:19 (“[A]ny change in the format or method
of use of the mark . . . should be sufficient to excuse a prior delay.”).
In April 2020, the Church adopted the Christus Symbol as its official logo and began
prominently using it. Id., ¶¶ 21-24.
<image>
Thereafter, the Christus Symbol began appearing in the Mormon Stories header and main
“Welcome” video thumbnail in their branding and advertising. See id. ¶¶ 40-42.
<image>
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.

 

Both motions are arguing about 2 different Supreme Court cases and which one has priority.  Dehlin argues that "Rogers v. Grimaldi" is the controlling case and the Church argues that "Jack Daniel’s Props., Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC".  The 1989 Rogers case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi) said that using a trademark word in a title is acceptable and gave a formula (called the Rogers test) to determine if the trademark was being infringed.  The 2023 Jack Daniels case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Daniel's_Properties,_Inc._v._VIP_Products_LLC) said that the Rogers test does not cover situations where the trademark was used as a trademark by the infringer.

I think the Church's argument is stronger because "Mormon Stories" seems to be more than just a title.  It is more like the identity.  Yes, the company is technically called "Open Stories" but it is mostly marketed as "Mormon Stories".

But even if the Church wins here, it just means it goes into the discovery phase.  Dehlin could still win at the end.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I think the Church's argument is stronger because "Mormon Stories" seems to be more than just a title.  It is more like the identity.  Yes, the company is technically called "Open Stories" but it is mostly marketed as "Mormon Stories".

It does seem like Dehlin was going out of his way to design his website so as to mimic the Church's designs, themes, color palette, motifs, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Pyreaux]

The Church is going to pwn Mormon Stories, and now the ACLU and EFF. Keep digging that hole.

[let’s roll]

Does the site include a disclaimer?  If the issue is potential confusion, a simple disclaimer such as: BE ADVISED.  THIS SITE AND THE RELATED PODCAST ARE NOT SPONSORED BY, AFFILIATED WITH, OR ENDORSED BY THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.  ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE THOSE OF MR. DEHLIN AND HIS GUESTS. 

I wonder if the Church has indicated it will dismiss its claims if Dehlin makes a clear and prominent disclaimer.

[webbles]

31 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Does the site include a disclaimer?  If the issue is potential confusion, a simple disclaimer such as: BE ADVISED.  THIS SITE AND THE RELATED PODCAST ARE NOT SPONSORED BY, AFFILIATED WITH, OR ENDORSED BY THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.  ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE THOSE OF MR. DEHLIN AND HIS GUESTS. 

I wonder if the Church has indicated it will dismiss its claims if Dehlin makes a clear and prominent disclaimer.

The site does have a disclaimer but the Church argues the current disclaimer isn't good enough and is potentially misleading as well (people sometimes don't read the full text and just see the Church's name and so assume a connection).

This is what is in the Church's response (starting on page 32):

Quote

Defendants finally argue that the deployment of disclaimers on their websites
demonstrates that their use of the contested marks is not explicitly misleading. ECF No.
41, Mot. to Dismiss at pp. 6-7. But there are serious questions about whether Defendants’
disclaimers accomplish anything, and some reason to believe they contribute to confusion.
This disclaimer is on the bottom of www.Mormon*******.***, after scrolling down
the equivalent of four pages (ECF No. 1-4 at p. 261):
<image>
One would have to be actively searching for this disclaimer to find it. On Mormon Stories’
YouTube and Spotify pages, you have to click a link to expand information about Mormon
Stories to see the disclaimer. This is from Spotify (no disclaimer visible):
<image>
Only after clicking on “Show more” under the “About” section and reading to the end do
you get to the disclaimer:
<image>
And when a Mormon Stories “reel” comes across a YouTube, Instagram, or other social
media feed (potentially Defendants’ most common way of reaching consumers), there is
no disclaimer.
“Clearly, use of a relatively inconspicuous disclaimer will not prevent likely
confusion.” 3 McCarthy on Trademarks § 23:51; see also Weight Watchers Int’l, Inc. v.
Stouffer Corp., 744 F. Supp. 1259, 1276-77 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (disclaimer failed to alleviate
likelihood of confusion due to small print and non-prominent placement). And consumer
surveys also show that “disclaimers relying on brief negator words such as ‘no’ and ‘not’
are not likely to be effective.” Jacoby & Szybillo, Why Disclaimers Fail, 84 Trademark
Rep. 224, 237 (1994). Further, a “low-involvement” disclaimer like this can actually
“contribute to source confusion” because they “often are not read with great care.” E. & J.
Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 1989 WL 159628, at *19 (E.D. Cal. June 19, 1989). A
person may glance, see only the Church’s name, and assume an affiliation.