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 17 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 17 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.

 

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

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):

Thanks for this.  Clear and prominent are the keys.  Undoubtedly, Dehlin’s attorneys know that.  One would hope they have advised him of that, have drafted a disclaimer designed to be clear and prominent, and sought Dehlin’s approval to share it with the lawyers representing the Church in an effort to settle the matter (which might have been avoided had a well-crafted disclaimer been used from the start). 
 

On the flip side one would hope the Church has shared with Dehlin’s attorneys a draft of a disclaimer the Church deems acceptable, including both the wording of the disclaimer and the usage requirements to ensure it is adequately prominent.

[Kenngo1969]

Anybody else see the irony in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints arguing that a case involving Jack Daniels Properties, Inc. should control the Church's defense of its copyrights?  

You heard it here first, folks!  You can't make this stuff up!     

"Thank you, Jackie D.'s!!!"   

[webbles]

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

Thanks for this.  Clear and prominent are the keys.  Undoubtedly, Dehlin’s attorneys know that.  One would hope they have advised him of that, have drafted a disclaimer designed to be clear and prominent, and sought Dehlin’s approval to share it with the lawyers representing the Church in an effort to settle the matter (which might have been avoided had a well-crafted disclaimer been used from the start). 
 

On the flip side one would hope the Church has shared with Dehlin’s attorneys a draft of a disclaimer the Church deems acceptable, including both the wording of the disclaimer and the usage requirements to ensure it is adequately prominent.

I think this is where the original discussions broke down.  The Church asked for a disclaimer to be read at the beginning of every clip.  Probably because if you just come across the video through youtube, instagram, etc, there is no disclaimer visible.  Dehlin disagreed with that.  This is what the Church wrote in the original complaint:

Quote

Before filing this Complaint, the Church notified Defendants of its concerns and
attempted to work with Defendants in making changes to mitigate the confusion they have caused
and are likely to cause in the future. See Exhibit 5. While Defendants agreed to make some
changes, they were unwilling to take the actions needed to sufficiently address the confusion they
had created. For example, Defendants refused to include a simple disclaimer at the beginning of
podcast episodes, either verbally or in writing, acknowledging that Mormon Stories is not affiliated
with the Church. Additionally, while Defendants assured the Church they would remove the
Church’s copyrighted images from their website and social media pages and would not use
copyrighted images in the future, just a few days later Defendants used an image owned and
registered by the Church to advertise a Mormon Stories podcast episode.

Someone used the wayback machine and noticed that the disclaimer on the bottom of the pages was a recent change, so the initial mediation between the two groups did cause a disclaimer to be added, but it the Church doesn't think that is a good enough disclaimer.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

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):

 

Given the number of people in my experience who don’t know the difference to begin with (contacting FAIR to complain about it, mentioning it here over the years), the disclaimer needs to be front and center, not just at the bottom of a page many don’t scroll down to see or at the end of a video that many won’t finish or visible only if one clicks “read more”.  It needs to be both written and spoken in the beginning of each episode as many will just listen.  I watch videos and podcasts all the time (when I do watch them) without reading any info on them and given I am someone who often reads the fine print at least once before signing, I bet there are lots of people who don’t read the extras, possibly a majority.  Especially if one is required to click to expand the caption to see it, which iirc one does (I checked it last time this came up).
 

If Dehlin is serious that he isn’t trying to mimic the Church, why wouldn’t he be willing to put a disclaimer that is most easily spotted?  Does it cost him any different than putting it at the end unless people are actually confused? (Serious question, maybe there is something that is nonchurch related that is affected).

He can do it once and get it edited in for each episode.  Not a lot of work and it can’t be more expensive to add the clip to the beginning as the end, surely?

Edited 1 hour ago by Calm

[webbles]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given the number of people in my experience who don’t know the difference to begin with (contacting FAIR to complain about it, mentioning it here over the years), the disclaimer needs to be front and center, not just at the bottom of a page many don’t scroll down to see or at the end of a video that many won’t finish or visible only if one clicks “read more”.  It needs to be both written and spoken in the beginning of each episode as many will just listen.  I watch videos and podcasts all the time (when I do watch them) without reading any info on them and given I am someone who often reads the fine print at least once before signing, I bet there are lots of people who don’t read the extras, possibly a majority.  Especially if one is required to click to expand the caption to see it, which iirc one does (I checked it last time this came up).
 

If Dehlin is serious that he isn’t trying to mimic the Church, why wouldn’t he be willing to put a disclaimer that is most easily spotted?  Does it cost him any different than putting it at the end unless people are actually confused? (Serious question, maybe there is something that is nonchurch related that is affected).

He can do it once and get it edited in for each episode.  Not a lot of work and it can’t be more expensive to add the clip to the beginning as the end, surely?

The episodes have no disclaimers in them.  Nothing in the end either.  So, he would have to put in quite a bit of work to insert the disclaimer as it is currently not there.  And I don't know if that impacts result sorting.  Does an edit to a video cause it to be considered a new video and loose all of its likes?

[let’s roll]

29 minutes ago, webbles said:

The episodes have no disclaimers in them.  Nothing in the end either.  So, he would have to put in quite a bit of work to insert the disclaimer as it is currently not there.  And I don't know if that impacts result sorting.  Does an edit to a video cause it to be considered a new video and loose all of its likes?

Mr. Dehlin could have all the work done to produce and insert clear and prominent disclaimers in all of his publications and webcasts for a small fraction of what he will spend to defend, and most likely ultimately lose, a lawsuit that the complaint makes clear (thanks Weebles) he brought upon himself by refusing to make disclosures that would not include anything that is contrary to his stated intentions.  

With experience gained from representing a wide variety of clients, I can state with certainty that pride is often an expensive vice.

Edited 31 minutes ago by let’s roll

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, webbles said:

Does an edit to a video cause it to be considered a new video and loose all of its likes?

This hadn’t occurred to me as I ignore that kind of stuff usually.  Here is what Chat suggested as possible because a new upload/reloading does reset ar zero.

Quote

However, he could add something to the existing video without starting over:

• A pinned comment — this keeps the existing video, URL, likes, views, etc. YouTube allows the creator to pin their own comment to the top of the comment section.
• An on-screen card — YouTube allows cards to be added to an existing video.
• An end-screen message — also can be added to an existing video, although obviously it doesn’t help someone who never reaches the end.
• Modify the existing video with YouTube’s editor — YouTube permits certain edits without re-uploading, and those preserve the video’s URL, views and comments. Trimming is specifically documented this way.

But there’s a catch for what you’re describing: YouTube’s editor isn’t a general-purpose tool for inserting a new disclaimer anywhere in an already-uploaded video. So if he wants, for example, a 10-second disclaimer at the beginning of an existing interview, he can’t simply upload the newly edited MP4 and have YouTube swap it into the existing video’s place.

So his choices aren’t quite as binary as he’s making them sound

If the objective is “make sure viewers actually see the disclaimer”, rather than merely having it somewhere, he could put a very prominent disclaimer in the first seconds of future videos. For existing videos, he could use a pinned comment plus perhaps a card, while retaining all the existing engagement.

And importantly, adding a disclaimer to the video itself would not inherently “restart” its likes or algorithmic history if YouTube’s own editing tools can accomplish the particular edit. The thing that causes the reset is creating a new upload.

Looks like there is a valid reason to fight it, though it was his choice to mimic it.

I wonder if he offered to do it in future videos.  Seems like that would be admitting it is needed and give foundation for the Church to insist, but surely it could be phrased as ‘in the spirit of cooperation even though the current disclaimer is sufficient, we will be adding a written and spoken disclaimer, etc etc.

Edited 24 minutes ago by Calm

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

With experience gained from representing a wide variety of clients, I can state with certainty that pride is often an expensive vice.

Might be more about the attention, also a pride thing, than the money.

[InCognitus]

5 hours 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.

I posted this in a prior thread on April 19:

On April 19, his website shows this at the bottom: 

"© 2005-2026 Open Stories Foundation. All rights reserved. Mormon Stories is not affiliated with, endorsed or sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." 

It probably says something similar, if not the same thing, today (but I haven't checked).

But if you look up the website in the Wayback Machine, there is no disclaimer as recent as the January 31 2026 capture, and it only says this at the bottom of the webpage:

"© Copyright 2005 - 2026 | Mormon Stories. All rights reserved."

He added that change to the website as a result of the mediation process before he refused some of the other requests.