In April 2026, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its intellectual property arm, Intellectual Reserve, filed a federal lawsuit against the Open Stories Foundation and John Dehlin. The complaint alleges trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and consumer confusion arising from the use of the name Mormon Stories, its branding, and its use of Church-related images.
The Church portrays the case as a straightforward effort to protect its trademarks and prevent confusion among people seeking information about the faith. Mormon Stories sees the case very differently. In its response and counterclaim, the organization argues that the Church is attempting to claim ownership over a word that belongs to an entire religious movement while using intellectual property law against one of its most visible critics.
Here are the major arguments at the center of the dispute.
1. Mormon Stories Says the Evidence Doesn't Support Confusion of Branding.
The foundation of the Church's lawsuit is the claim that people are confusing Mormon Stories with an official Church product.
According to the complaint:
"Defendants' use of Church trademarks and copyrighted materials has caused and will continue to cause individuals to be confused and access Defendants' content mistakenly believing it comes from or is affiliated with or endorsed by the Church.
To support that claim, the Church includes a collection of comments from social media users. Some stated that they initially believed Mormon Stories was Church-affiliated before discovering its critical content. Others said they subscribed assuming it was an official LDS resource. One commenter wrote:
I stumbled upon the Mormon Stories podcast, thinking it was church affiliated.
Another stated:
I subscribed to his channel immediately thinking it was church affiliated. Very purposefully deceptive.
The Church presents these comments as evidence of common confusion, Mormon Stories argues that these examples prove very little.
The defendants note that the Church's evidence consists of a relatively small number of comments. Even among the examples provided, many individuals quickly realized Mormon Stories was independent after minimal exposure to its content.
The response states:
In truth, only 6 comments in paragraph 54 of the Complaint were posted on the MORMON STORIES Facebook or YouTube pages. The other comments, as Defendants had already informed the Church, were posted in response to third-party videos from faithful members of the Church discussing and supporting the Church’s recent trademark enforcement efforts at issue in this case...
...On information and belief, the Church chose not to provide the links from which the comments were obtained in paragraph 54 in order to conceal its misrepresentation in the Complain...For the very few comments that were actually made in response to a MORMON STORIES video post, none of them express source or brand confusion and they were selectively pulled by the Church from among thousands of other comments made in response to videos collectively receiving millions of views...
...The Church’s selective mining of online comments, and deceptive allegations regarding the origin of the same, fails to provide any meaningful or credible basis for the Church’s allegations of source or affiliation confusion stemming from Defendants use of the MORMON STORIES name or its logos and branding
The defense argues that isolated examples do not demonstrate widespread public confusion. Mormon Stories has operated under the same name since 2005, has produced thousands of hours of content, and has spent years publicly criticizing Church history, policies, and leadership. It is arguably one of the most recognizable independent Mormon-themed podcasts in existence.
From Mormon Stories' perspective, the Church has produced evidence that a handful of people were briefly mistaken, not evidence that consumers generally believe Mormon Stories is an official Church publication.
2. Mormon Stories Says the Similarities to Church Branding Are Overstated.
A large portion of the complaint focuses on the blue Mormon Stories logo adopted in 2022.
The Church argues that the logo closely resembles its own branding, particularly the blue color palette and light-ray imagery used throughout official Church media.
The complaint states:
Defendants adopted a blue MORMON STORIES logo with a light-rays design prominently used by the Church, showing Defendants' intent to capitalize on and increase confusion.
The lawsuit includes side-by-side comparisons of Church icons and the Mormon Stories logo and argues that the design was chosen specifically because it resembles official Church materials.
Mormon Stories rejects that characterization.
The defense argues that blue color schemes, geometric patterns, and light-ray effects are common graphic design elements that cannot be monopolized by any organization. The response also points to years of prior branding used throughout the Mormon Stories ecosystem that incorporated similar themes before the Church's current visual identity was introduced.
The Church’s use of blue in some of its branding is not unique to the Church, but is consistent with the fact that blue is a commonly used color in the branding for U.S.-based religious organizations, such as Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church
The counterclaim continues:
What the Church calls its “Light-Rays Design” mark (shown below) is described in its trademark registration as follows: “The mark consists of a collection of geometric shapes comprising a rectangle and three overlapping triangles extending therefrom, with two triangles extending from a first side of the rectangle and a third triangle extending from an opposite second side of the rectangle, with the various shapes in the design having differing shading”
MORMON STORIES has never used the Church’s rectangular overlapping triangles mark for any reason. ...Defendants’ blue updated MORMON STORIES logo was created using the following free blue design downloaded from Freepik.
Mormon Stories also demonstrates that incredibly similar designs are used in PowerPoint default templates, and in hundreds of images available online.
The disagreement is ultimately about intent. The Church argues the similarities were deliberate. Mormon Stories argues the Church is reading too much into ordinary design choices.
3. Mormon Stories Says Nobody Owns Mormon.
A major part of the Church's lawsuit rests on its claim that Mormon is a legally protected trademark associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The complaint states:
Plaintiffs have continuously used in commerce marks incorporating the term MORMON for nearly 200 years.
The Church points to numerous trademark registrations containing the word Mormon and argues that the public recognizes those marks as identifying Church-produced goods and services.
Mormon Stories responds that the Church is attempting to claim exclusive rights to a word that has long been used by an entire religious movement.
The counterclaim states:
No single source, including the Church, has the legal right to control the use of 'Mormon'.
The defendants argue that Mormon is not merely the name of one church. It is a broad religious and cultural label that applies to multiple denominations, former members, fundamentalist groups, historians, and millions of people connected to Mormon history and tradition.
More importantly, Mormon Stories argues that the Church's own trademark history demonstrates this problem. According to the counterclaim, the Church faced difficulty obtaining trademark protection for Mormon precisely because the term is so widely used and understood as a generic religious identifier rather than a unique brand name.
The counterclaim states:
The USPTO and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board concluded “Mormon” was generic in connection with Ser. No. 78/161,091, explaining that “Mormon” “is a word similar to ‘CATHOLIC’” as a generic term denoting a religion.
The defendants contend that generic terms are not supposed to function as exclusive trademarks because they describe a category rather than a single source.
In other words, the Church argues that Mormon identifies the Church. Mormon Stories argues that Mormon identifies an entire religious tradition and therefore cannot belong exclusively to any single institution.
4. Mormon Stories Says the Church Abandoned the Mormon Brand.
The Church's complaint emphasizes its long history of using Mormon-related marks. The lawsuit repeatedly notes that the public has associated the term Mormon with the Church since the nineteenth century and argues that this association remains strong today.
Mormon Stories responds by focusing on something much more recent.
Beginning in 2018, President Russell M. Nelson launched a major effort to stop using the Mormon nickname. Church organizations, media properties, websites, and publications were renamed. Mormon.org disappeared. Mormon Channel became Latter-day Saints Channel. References to "the Mormon Church" were actively discouraged.
The counterclaim states:
The Church publicly and expressly abandoned...the very word 'Mormon' that it now claims ownership and control of and sues to protect. Church President at the time, Russell M. Nelson, declared that the Church would no longer use “Mormon” as an identifier, declared that “Mormon” was simply an “adjective,” and condemned its use as antithetical to the Church’s religious teachings and beliefs.
This argument appears repeatedly throughout the response.
The defendants argue that the Church cannot spend years telling the public not to use Mormon while simultaneously claiming broad exclusive rights to the term in federal court.
The Defense also notes:
Even as the Church spent years publicly dismantling every trace of “Mormon” from its branding, it simultaneously submitted sworn declarations to the USPTO falsely representing the true nature of the Church’s ongoing trademark use, or lack thereof, regarding the term “Mormon.”
5. The Church Says Mormon Stories Used Copyrighted Images Without Permission. Mormon Stories Says Much of That Use Was Fair Use.
The Church alleges that Mormon Stories reproduced and displayed copyrighted Church images without authorization. These include images of Church leaders, artwork, temples, and other Church-owned materials used in thumbnails, social media posts, and promotional content.
The complaint argues that these images were used to promote Mormon Stories content and contributed to confusion regarding affiliation with the Church. It further alleges that some uses continued even after discussions between the parties.
Instead, the defense argues that many of the challenged images were used as part of commentary, criticism, reporting, and educational discussion. Those types of uses often fall under fair use protections.
The defendants also note that numerous images were removed after concerns were raised and argue that the remaining claims are far weaker than the Church suggests.
6. Mormon Stories Asks Why the Church Waited Twenty Years.
The Mormon Stories podcast launched in 2005. For more than twenty years, it has operated under the same name, discussing Mormon history, doctrine, culture, and current events. During that time, it grew from a small independent podcast into one of the most recognizable voices in the Mormon community.
According to the counterclaim, Church leaders have been aware of John Dehlin and Mormon Stories for many years. The filing describes communications and interactions involving Dehlin and senior Church leaders dating back decades. It specifically references correspondence with then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks long before the lawsuit was filed. The response also describes meetings, discussions, and ongoing awareness of Mormon Stories among Church leadership and Church-affiliated organizations.
The Defense states:
Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed for two decades in asserting their claims for trademark infringement against Defendants' use of MORMON STORIES as the title for their 20-year-old podcast.
Mormon Stories argues that the Church watched the organization grow, build an audience, establish a reputation, create additional programs, hire employees, raise donations, and invest heavily in the Mormon Stories brand without bringing trademark litigation.
The response suggests that if Mormon Stories truly posed a serious trademark problem, the Church had countless opportunities to raise the issue years earlier.
The timing becomes even more significant because the lawsuit was filed after Mormon Stories had become one of the Church's most prominent critics and one of the most influential Mormon media organizations.
7. Mormon Stories Believes that the Lawsuit is about Silencing a Critic, and NOT about Trademark Concerns
The biggest disagreement in the case may not be about trademarks at all, it may be about what the lawsuit is really trying to accomplish.
The complaint states:
The Church does not seek, in any way, to influence the content of Defendants' podcast.
Mormon Stories sees the case differently.
Shortly after becoming President of the Church in October 2025, and shortly after the Church began the surprising intellectual property enforcement campaign against Defendants and other Mormon-themed podcasters in November 2025, President Oaks gave a talk on February 10, 2026, warning Church members about the dangers of podcasts, stating, “An abundance of speculation and false information in podcasts and on social media surrounds us. Some may protest or question the truth of Church doctrine without knowing or even understanding the fulness of that doctrine.”
The Bottom Line
The Church's complaint presents a relatively simple story. Mormon Stories adopted branding that resembles Church materials, uses Church-owned images, benefits from public confusion, and infringes legally protected trademarks.
The defendants argue that confusion is minimal, the branding similarities are overstated, the word Mormon belongs to an entire religious movement rather than a single institution, the Church abandoned the Mormon brand years ago, and the lawsuit threatens discussion of Mormonism itself.
The legal questions will be decided in court. The larger questions are already being debated in public: Who gets to define Mormon identity? Can a church claim broad rights to a religious label used by millions of people? And where should the line be drawn between trademark protection and free expression?
Nailed it. I really think LDS loses this.
ReplyDelete