When The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publicly announced on Friday afternoon that it had filed a lawsuit against the ex-Mormon podcast “Mormon Stories” for trademark and copyright infringement, the reaction was swift and intense.
Some accused the church of trying to silence dissenting voices or trying to claim back the word “Mormon.” But this isn’t about silencing content or policing the word “Mormon.” It’s about brand confusion.
Reasonable people can disagree about where that line should be drawn. But the legal framework itself is not controversial.
As a content creator who regularly discusses the church and an attorney who specializes in protecting creators’ intellectual property, we view this for what it is: a straightforward effort to address actual brand confusion and enforce basic intellectual property law.
How brand confusion works
In our view, the core issue of this lawsuit is not that “Mormon” is in the name of “Mormon Stories.” Rather, this lawsuit is fundamentally about two distinct but related problems.
First, the trademark claims: “Mormon Stories” has adopted branding, including its name, logo, color palette and design elements, that so closely mimics the church’s official visual identity that viewers and listeners can’t tell the two apart, especially in the fast-paced way people consume podcasts.
Second, the copyright claims: Per the federal complaint, “Mormon Stories” has repeatedly reproduced copyrighted church-owned photographs and artwork, without permission, in its promotional materials and video thumbnails for commercial use, which is rarely considered “fair use.” Together, this compounded use of media assets create what trademark lawyers call “likelihood of confusion,” a legal standard concerning whether an ordinary consumer or viewer would mistakenly believe the content is affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by the church.
Over the years, as detailed in the lawsuit, “Mormon Stories” has utilized visual branding that is reminiscent of official church media. In December of 2022, John Dehlin, the podcast creator, switched from his brown logo to a blue one with a similar “light rays” design, making his logo similar to the church.
Facebook commenters immediately noticed, pointing out the resemblance to “the LDS logo” and “the Book of Mormon” branding. As the complaint states: “the nearly indistinguishable nature of the blue Mormon Stories logo has been recognized by individuals commenting on Mormon Stories’ Facebook profile image.”
“Mormon Stories” had coupled the new logo with church photos, matching fonts and even Bertel Thorvaldsen’s Christus statue in its YouTube thumbnails and banners.
Stack the colors, the imagery and a name like “Mormon Stories,” and this stops looking accidental and becomes intentionally confusing. Real commenters have expressed their confusion. For instance, the official legal complaint includes the following quotes:
- “I stumbled upon the Mormon Stories podcast, thinking it was Church affiliated.”
- “I subscribed to his channel immediately thinking it was church affiliated. Very purposefully deceptive.”
Dehlin has claimed, “We disagree with their allegations of confusion.” Yet in a “Mormon Stories” episode from 2022, the podcast host acknowledged some degree of intent.
A guest told Dehlin, “Pretty quickly after my mission … I went to the podcast app, Apple Podcasts, typed in ‘Mormon,’ saw ‘Mormon Stories’ and I was like, perfect! Stories about Mormons.”
“That’s not why I named it,” the podcaster responded. “OK, maybe it was a little bit why.”
The ‘use it or lose it’ reality
A hard truth about intellectual property, one Brittany drills into clients, is this: If you don’t protect your trademarks, you lose them. Brand enforcement isn’t optional; it’s part of maintaining your rights and protecting consumers and viewers.
Courts routinely look at whether a trademark owner has been consistent in policing its marks as evidence that those marks still function as source identifiers. And “Mormon” has been a trademark since 1833. The church isn’t overreaching here; it’s doing exactly what trademark law expects and encourages.
This also isn’t a targeted crackdown on Dehlin because he’s a loud critic. Church lawyers have also contacted faithful Latter-day Saint creators for infringing on copyrights and trademarks because the end problem is the same: brand confusion.
The mediation and disclaimer
In a recent livestream, Dehlin revealed what he claims were the church’s “unreasonable” demands during mediation. According to him, they asked him to take “Mormon” out of the website domain and brand name, never initiate any future internet project using the word “Mormon,” renounce trademark rights to “Mormon Stories,” promise never to challenge the church’s trademarks, and agree that the church owns all rights to the word “Mormon.”
Dehlin claims these were unreasonable demands, and on their face, they certainly are intense. Only those in the room can know what happened, but to anyone familiar with legal disputes, this reads as a classic process of negotiation. Each side starts with larger demands, and eventually works toward a manageable concession in the middle.
What was the final ask the church ultimately wanted? According to the church, it proposed a simple solution: “a brief disclaimer at the beginning of the podcast episodes stating that the content is not affiliated with or endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
Dehlin argues that the church’s narrative is false because he did add disclaimer language to his podcast descriptions on platforms like Spotify, Apple and YouTube and at the bottom of his website. However, the church has requested a “simple disclaimer at the beginning of podcast episodes, either verbally or in writing, acknowledging that Mormon Stories is not affiliated with the Church.” Dehlin has refused, stating, “We don’t want our primary message to be about what we are NOT.”
Importantly, people don’t often read podcast fine print at the bottom of show notes. They hit play in the car, on a walk, at the gym. A five-second audio disclaimer at the beginning of the episode, “Not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” actually reaches listeners.
To compound the issue, the legal complaint details how during mediation, the 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.”
Yet as the complaint notes, days later, “Mormon Stories” used a copyrighted image of a church temple to advertise a new podcast episode. Continually ignoring those boundaries makes legal escalation almost inevitable.
Building on your own IP land
Dehlin claims that he has used the “Mormon Stories” name for more than 20 years without objection and points out that the church has distanced itself from the term “Mormon.” While President Russell M. Nelson strongly encouraged members to emphasize the full, proper name of the church to center its Christian identity, the church has not abandoned its trademarks. They still actively hold and protect trademarks for “Mormon,” “Book of Mormon Stories,” “Mormon Tabernacle Choir” and “Mormon Channel.”
When Dunkin’ Donuts rebranded to “Dunkin’” in 2019, that branding shift didn’t mean the company abandoned its trademark rights in the full name. If a competitor opened a “Dunkin’ Donuts” tomorrow, the company would have to sue. And it would win.
A pivot in how you identify yourself is not the same thing as giving up your legal rights. The church’s decision to emphasize its full name does not mean the “Mormon” marks are up for grabs.
A voluntary rebrand would be the cleanest path forward for the Open Stories Foundation. Changing the name would undoubtedly involve friction, but copying the branding of an institution you oppose isn’t a sustainable legal strategy.
Build on IP land that you actually own. Rebrands are tough, but they are a chance to reset, sharpen your positioning and tell your story — not someone else’s. This way, you can build a distinct and independent brand that no one can question.