How a church lawyer’s friendly podcast interview — and a marketplace crowded with the word “Mormon” — are complicating the LDS Church’s trademark case against John Dehlin
❦ ❦ ❦
On a friendly stage, before a friendly host, a lawyer for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tried to explain the difference between a word that confuses and a word that does not. It was the kind of explanation that sounds perfectly reasonable in a podcast studio. It sounds rather different once it is stapled, as an exhibit, to your opponent’s court papers.
That is where attorney David Jordan’s September appearance on Keystone, a podcast sympathetic to the church, has now landed. Within days, lawyers for John Dehlin — founder of the Mormon Stories Podcast in 2005, excommunicated for apostasy in 2015, and now a federal defendant — filed a four-page supplement arguing that Jordan’s own words expose the church’s trademark enforcement as something other than what the church says it is. On September 30, The Salt Lake Tribune led its religion coverage with the development, pairing it with advice to Dehlin from the one public figure who knows exactly what it feels like to be on the receiving end of the church’s intellectual-property machinery.
“Don’t be intimidated into backing down the way I was.”
— Heather Gay, star of The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City, to John Dehlin, as reported by The Salt Lake Tribune, Sept. 30, 2026
This report examines where the lawsuit stands, what Jordan said, and why it matters. It also takes up a question that runs beneath the whole case like a fault line: if the word “Mormon” already lives on maps, marquees, bookshelves, streaming menus, and a long roster of independent enterprises the church has never sued, how does one podcast become the confusion the law must cure?
❦ ❦ ❦
I. How We Got Here
The Letters Before the Lawsuit
The conflict did not begin in a courtroom. In November 2025, the church’s intellectual-property manager wrote to Dehlin’s Open Stories Foundation. According to the Deseret News, the podcast responded by recoloring its logo orange, altering its style, removing church-copyrighted images and adding the church’s preferred non-affiliation disclaimer to its show descriptions. What Dehlin refused to do was open every episode with a spoken disclaimer — or, by his account, drop the word “Mormon” from the name altogether.
Mormon Stories was not the only target. In December 2025, the Tribune reported that at least three critical podcasts had been pressed over the “M-word.” Bill Reel, whose network includes Mormon Discussions and Radio Free Mormon, said a church paralegal contacted him after he sought to register those names. The November email, shared with The Washington Post, struck a conciliatory tone while holding the line.
The church “has an obligation to protect its MORMON trademarks as unique identifiers to prevent confusion.”
— Church paralegal’s email to Bill Reel, as reported by The Washington Post via Missouri Lawyers Media, June 23, 2026
The Case in Court
On April 17, 2026, after mediation failed, the church and Intellectual Reserve, Inc. — the nonprofit that holds title to its trademarks and copyrights — sued Dehlin and the foundation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint alleges that a blue logo, light-ray motifs, familiar fonts, and the word “Mormon” were combined to imitate church branding, and that copyrighted church photographs were used without permission.
Dehlin answered on June 22 with a 108-page motion to dismiss and counterclaims asking the court to cancel eleven church registrations, including the bare mark MORMON, along with Mormon Channel, Mormon Messages and Book of Mormon Stories. His defense rests on the First Amendment, on two decades of unchallenged use, and on a theory of abandonment rooted in the church’s own rebrand.
“The LDS Church does not own the word ‘Mormon.’”
— John Dehlin, Mormon Stories press release, June 22, 2026
In August, the ACLU of Utah and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed amicus briefs on Dehlin’s side, with EFF warning that trademark litigation can chill lawful criticism simply by making it expensive. The church replied on August 20 with a notable concession.
“Dehlin can criticize the church as he chooses, and he can use Mormon in connection with his podcast.”
— Church attorneys’ response to the motion to dismiss, as reported by the Deseret News, Aug. 20, 2026
The qualifier is the whole case. The church argues Dehlin uses “Mormon Stories” as a trademark — unregistered, but a brand nonetheless — and that in its visual packaging it trades on the church’s identity. By late September, Radio Free Mormon reported, the briefing on the motion to dismiss was complete. Then came Keystone.
❦ ❦ ❦
II. The Interview That Became an Exhibit
“Common Sense” and a Blue Circle
As transcribed by Hemant Mehta of Friendly Atheist, host David Snell asked Jordan the question every trademark plaintiff must eventually answer: what evidence of actual confusion has the church found? Jordan said people had told the church over the years that they believed the podcast was somehow sponsored by it. He then correctly noted that the legal standard is likelihood of confusion, not a body count, and invited listeners to apply common sense to the blue circle, the light rays and the words “Mormon Stories,” which he said suggest affiliation to an ordinary person.
Then he drew a contrast. Other uses of the word, he suggested, obviously signal independence. His examples were Mormon.ish — and Heather Gay’s Bad Mormon.
“You’re not thinking, ‘Oh, I bet that’s affiliated with the Church.’”
— David Jordan, church attorney, on the Keystone podcast, discussing “Bad Mormon,” as transcribed by Hemant Mehta, Friendly Atheist, Sept. 30, 2026
The Problem With the Example
The church did not treat Bad Mormon as harmless. When Gay sought federal registration of the phrase for merchandise, the church opposed it before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, arguing that the mark falsely suggested a connection with the church, would tarnish its reputation and, crucially, was likely to confuse. Gay withdrew her application in 2024, and the office entered judgment against her. Her memoir kept its title; her merchandise lost its federal protection.
The church called “Bad Mormon” “virtually identical to the church’s Mormon marks.”
— Summary of the church’s USPTO opposition, Techdirt, Feb. 13, 2023
Dehlin’s lawyers pounced. Their supplement argues that if the church’s own counsel now concedes no reasonable person would link Bad Mormon to the church, then the year-long opposition that wore Gay down was never about confusion at all.
The church and its attorneys “intentionally misuse federal trademark law as a tool of coercion.”
— Defendants’ supplemental filing, Intellectual Reserve v. Dehlin, D. Utah, September 2026
A footnote widens the lens, listing other applications the church has opposed: Mormon Whiskey, Mormons for the Devils, Mormonboyz and Secret Mormon. Few observers would mistake a whiskey brand for a product of a church that forbids alcohol.
A Fair Reading
In fairness to Jordan, opposing a registration and suing for infringement are different proceedings with overlapping but distinct standards. A church lawyer can coherently argue that granting someone exclusive federal rights in “Bad Mormon” raises false-connection concerns even if a book title confuses no one. But the church’s own opposition invoked likelihood of confusion, and the supplement is not offered to prove the absence of infringement. It is offered to support a First Amendment narrative: that the process itself is the punishment. On that narrower point, Jordan’s candor did his client no favors.
❦ ❦ ❦
III. Counting “Mormon”: A Crowded Marketplace
No One Has Taken the Census
How many unaffiliated businesses, ministries, media properties and organizations use “Mormon” in their names? The honest answer is that nobody has published an authoritative count — not the church, not Dehlin’s legal team, and not this publication. Dehlin’s side puts the figure in the hundreds.
“…neither do any of the other hundreds of businesses, non-profits, churches, or operations that use the word.”
— Mormon Stories, “Setting the Record Straight” Q&A, June 22, 2026
That claim is plausible, and probably conservative once geography, history, entertainment, and commerce are included. But it is an advocate’s estimate. A rigorous tally would require searching live and dead marks in the USPTO’s trademark database, then cross-checking state business registries such as Utah’s Division of Corporations and the Arizona Corporation Commission, plus podcast directories and domain registrations. That work remains undone, and whoever does it first will hand the court a useful exhibit.
A Partial Inventory
What can be documented is the breadth of the word’s independent life:
| Category | Unaffiliated Examples | Church Action on Record |
| Geography & public history | Mormon Lake (Arizona), Mormon Row (Grand Teton National Park), the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail | None known |
| Entertainment | The Book of Mormon (Broadway musical); The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives (Hulu) | No suit; church bought ads in the musical’s programs |
| Critics & ministries | Mormon Stories; Mormon Discussions; Radio Free Mormon; Mormon.ish; Mormonism Research Ministry | Letters to podcasters; lawsuit against Dehlin only |
| Merchandise & commerce | Bad Mormon; Mormon Whiskey; Mormons for the Devils; Mormonboyz; Secret Mormon; Mormon Match | Oppositions to federal registration |
| Natural science | The Mormon cricket and other species bearing the name | None, naturally |
The Pattern Behind the Pattern
The inventory reveals the church’s actual enforcement philosophy. It overwhelmingly polices registrations — attempts to claim exclusive federal rights — rather than uses. It did not sue Broadway; it advertised alongside it. It did not sue Hulu. The blog By Common Consent reported in 2018 that the church had even acquired marks such as “Mormon Savings” and “Mormon in Manhattan” to bolster its position. And the church runs a licensing program: the explainer site Mormonism Explained says it operates under a standard license from Intellectual Reserve covering “Mormon” and “Mormonism.”
That history cuts both ways. For the church, it shows a trademark owner actively policing its marks — exactly what the law expects. For Dehlin, it shows that thousands of Americans encounter “Mormon” daily in contexts the church neither controls nor objects to, which makes the word a poor badge of exclusive origin.
Why a Crowded Field Matters in Court
Federal courts in the Tenth Circuit, which includes Utah, weigh six factors in judging likelihood of confusion: similarity of the marks, the defendant’s intent, evidence of actual confusion, similarity of the products and how they are marketed, the care consumers exercise, and the strength of the plaintiff’s mark. Widespread third-party use goes straight to that last factor. A word used by many unrelated parties is a weak mark, and a weak mark receives narrow protection.
The government has already hinted at the problem. In refusing a third party’s attempt to register MORMON for religious services, a USPTO examining attorney found the word generic in that class.
MORMON is “incapable of serving as a source-identifier for applicant’s religious services.”
— USPTO final refusal, as documented by Mormonism Research Ministry
The church’s registrations, by contrast, cover narrower territory such as educational services in history and religion — which, it must be said, is uncomfortably close to what a long-form interview podcast about Mormon history provides. The crowded field weakens the word; it does not erase the church’s claim to the specific niche where Dehlin operates.
The View From Arizona
Readers in the East Valley need no tutorial on how ordinary the word is. Mormon Lake sits south of Flagstaff. Mesa’s pioneer history is woven into its street grid. And Mormons for the Devils — a merchandise line apparently aimed at Latter-day Saint fans of Arizona State’s Sun Devils — drew a church opposition of its own. Here, “Mormon” is a demographic, a heritage and a punchline long before it is a brand.
❦ ❦ ❦
IV. The Rebrand Boomerang
In October 2018, President Russell M. Nelson told the church that nicknames such as “Mormon Church” removed the Savior’s name and handed the adversary a win.
Setting aside the church’s full name is “a major victory for Satan.”
— President Russell M. Nelson, October 2018 General Conference, as cited in Dehlin’s filings reported by ABC4 Utah, June 2026
The Mormon Tabernacle Choir became The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. Mormon.org was redirected. Mormonism Research Ministry counts more than a thousand renamed products. Dehlin’s filings argue the church abandoned MORMON as a mark while telling the USPTO otherwise in renewals — and, more cleverly, that the rebrand taught the public that “Mormon” now signals non-official content. On that view, the church’s own campaign made confusion less likely.
The church counters with history.
The church has “continuously used in commerce marks incorporating the term MORMON for nearly 200 years.”
— Church complaint, as quoted by Meridian Magazine, April 2026
Legally, the church has the stronger footing here. Abandonment generally requires discontinued use with intent not to resume, and the church still sells the Book of Mormon by the millions. The abandonment counterclaim is a long shot. The public-perception argument is not. It belongs in the confusion analysis, where the rebrand sits awkwardly beside the claim that ordinary listeners assume anything labeled “Mormon” comes from Salt Lake.
❦ ❦ ❦
V. Why “As a Trademark” Is Everything
The church’s insistence that Dehlin uses “Mormon Stories” as a brand is not a rhetorical flourish. It is a strategy shaped by the Supreme Court. For decades, courts protected expressive works under the Rogers v. Grimaldi test, which shields titles and artistic uses unless they are explicitly misleading. In Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products (2023) — the case of a dog toy parodying a whiskey bottle — the Court held that this shield does not apply when a defendant uses a mark as a designation of source for its own goods.
If “Mormon Stories” is merely the title of an expressive work about Mormonism, Dehlin enjoys strong First Amendment insulation. If it functions as a trademark, the case moves into the ordinary six-factor confusion analysis — where the church’s logo evidence carries more weight. The supplement’s “coercion” framing is aimed squarely at keeping the judge focused on speech.
❦ ❦ ❦
VI. What the Church Still Has
A serious report must acknowledge the church’s best evidence. The copyright claims over church photographs were real enough that Dehlin removed the images. The complaint quotes listeners who say they briefly thought the show was official, though Slate observed that most describe only momentary confusion. The old blue-circle logo with light rays did resemble church design language, although Dehlin’s response claims the podcast used light rays before the church adopted its own “light ray design.” And the church does hold a registered mark in Book of Mormon Stories, a children’s title with a genuine name overlap.
The church’s strongest ground, in short, is visual trade dress, not vocabulary. Every time its lawyers drift from the logo to the word, they walk onto terrain crowded with lakes, musicals, crickets and critics — and, now, their own colleague’s podcast remarks.
❦ ❦ ❦
VII. What to Watch
First, the ruling on the motion to dismiss, and whether the First Amendment defense ends the case early. Second, the fate of the eleven cancellation counterclaims; even partial success would ripple through every future “Mormon” dispute. Third, discovery. Should the case survive, Dehlin’s lawyers will seek internal church communications about the rebrand and its enforcement strategy — documents a publicity-conscious institution may prefer never see daylight. Finally, the court of public opinion, where the Tribune’s Mormon Land podcast has already asked whether the church can win the lawsuit and still lose the public-relations war.
❦ ❦ ❦
VIII. Vexatious, Reconsidered
When the Process Is the Penalty — and the Plaintiff’s Own Lawyer Supplies the Evidence
A Word Reserved for the Weak
In American courtrooms, the label “vexatious” has a peculiar social history. It is rarely pinned on institutions. Federal judges use their authority under the All Writs Act to restrict the filings of abusive litigants, and the Tenth Circuit’s leading case on the subject, Tripati v. Beaman (1989), concerned a prisoner who had flooded the courts with pro se petitions. The typical vexatious litigant, in the law’s imagination, is a lone figure with too much time and too little money, filing again and again.
The modern phenomenon runs the other way. The litigant with the most endurance is not the one filing the most cases; it is the one who can afford to make a single case last. A lawsuit need not be repeated to be vexatious in its effect. It needs only to be expensive, slow, and aimed at someone who cannot match the spending. The vocabulary of the law has not caught up with that reality, and that gap is where the case against Mormon Stories now lives.
What the August Analysis Established
This publication’s August 29 analysis, “Vexatious by Design,” walked through the four legal mechanisms that might address abusive litigation: Rule 11 sanctions, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, fee-shifting in “exceptional cases” under Lanham Act § 35(a), and the tort of malicious prosecution. Its conclusions were deliberately restrained. The Church’s complaint is not sanctionable. Malicious prosecution is a dead end. The realistic vehicle is a fee award under Octane Fitness if the case is dismissed.
It also placed the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s cost figures at the center of the analysis: $100,000 to $375,000 per party to get through discovery and motion practice, and up to $1.1 million through trial and appeal.
“Those are not the numbers of a contest between equals. They are the numbers of a siege.”
— The Righteous Cause blog, “Vexatious by Design,” The Righteous Cause, Aug. 29, 2026
What that analysis lacked was evidence of purpose. It could show that the Church’s enforcement fell hardest on those least able to resist, and that the Church had spared Broadway and prestige television while pursuing nonprofits. But the pattern could be read charitably, as ordinary triage by a busy intellectual-property office. The record was missing any statement from the Church’s side acknowledging that one of its enforcement targets posed no real risk of confusion. September supplied one.
The Missing Piece Arrives
When attorney David Jordan told the Keystone podcast that no one seeing “Bad Mormon” would think the Church was behind it, he did something the Church’s briefs had carefully avoided. He conceded the merits of a dispute the Church had already pursued to its conclusion. The Church opposed Heather Gay’s application on likelihood-of-confusion grounds, among others. Gay withdrew. On Jordan’s account, the Church spent more than a year pressing a confusion claim that its own counsel now regards as obviously weak.
That matters under the fee-shifting standard. Octane Fitness directs courts to look at the totality of the circumstances, and it points to factors drawn from copyright law, including a litigant’s motivation and the need for deterrence. Among the evidence a court could weigh on motivation, few things are stronger than a party’s own lawyer describing an earlier enforcement action as one the law never required.
The language of the defendants’ September supplement is also worth noticing. It accuses the Church of wielding the burdensome process, rather than the merits, to force changes. Whether or not the drafters meant it to, that phrasing echoes the Supreme Court’s definition of a “sham” lawsuit in antitrust law.
A sham suit uses “the governmental process—as opposed to the outcome of that process” as a weapon.
— Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures, 508 U.S. 49, 61 (1993), quoting City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising (1991)
Honesty requires stating the limit plainly. The sham doctrine belongs to antitrust. Even there, it requires a showing that the suit was objectively baseless before any inquiry into motive begins. The Church’s complaint over copyrighted photographs is not baseless, and that alone would defeat the label. The value of the comparison is conceptual rather than doctrinal. The Supreme Court has recognized that litigation can function as a weapon through its process alone, apart from its outcome. The Mormon Stories dispute is a case study in that distinction.
The Gap Where Vexatious Suits Live
If the problem is that process punishes, the obvious remedy is a procedure that ends weak cases early and shifts the defendant’s costs to the plaintiff. Most states have one: an anti-SLAPP statute, aimed at “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” Utah adopted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act in 2023, which gives defendants sued over speech on matters of public concern an expedited motion to dismiss and, if they win, attorney’s fees.
John Dehlin cannot use it. State anti-SLAPP laws do not govern federal claims such as the Lanham Act and the Copyright Act. The Tenth Circuit, in Los Lobos Renewable Power v. AmeriCulture (2018), went further and held that New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP statute is procedural and does not apply even to state-law claims heard in federal court. Congress has considered federal anti-SLAPP legislation more than once and has never enacted it. A plaintiff who frames a dispute over speech as an intellectual-property claim therefore moves it into the one forum where the country’s main anti-SLAPP protection does not reach.
This explains why both amicus briefs pressed so hard for an early resolution. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s request that the court adopt the Rogers v. Grimaldi test is, in practical terms, a request for the closest thing to an anti-SLAPP motion that federal trademark law allows. In a case like this, when the court rules may matter as much as how it rules.
Heather Gay as Proof of Concept
EFF’s brief cited practitioner surveys and a leading treatise for the claim that recipients of trademark demands usually give in rather than fight. That claim is abstract. Heather Gay made it specific. She had a bestselling memoir, a television platform, and resources far beyond a typical podcaster’s, and she still decided that defending a merchandise trademark was not worth the fight.
“Don’t be intimidated into backing down the way I was.”
— Heather Gay to John Dehlin, as reported by The Salt Lake Tribune, Sept. 30, 2026
Her word is intimidated. She does not say she was persuaded, corrected, or shown to be wrong. When a reality-television star with a publisher and a national audience describes the experience that way, the likely experience of a donor-funded nonprofit is easy to infer.
Toward a Functional Definition
The law’s formal tests for vexatious conduct are built to catch frivolous filings. They do not catch a well-pleaded case used for leverage. Commentators need a different yardstick. What follows is offered as an analytical framework, not a legal standard. It proposes that litigation is vexatious in function, whatever its formal merit, when four conditions are met together:
| Functional Test | What the Record Shows |
| 1. The remedy sought exceeds the injury pleaded | In public, the Church says the case concerns logos and colors. By Dehlin’s account, the private mediation demands included renaming the show “Ex-Mormon Stories” and permanently giving up any trademark claim to the name. |
| 2. Enforcement tracks resources, not harm | The Church did not sue the Broadway musical or Hulu. It opposed filings by a whiskey maker, a dating service, a mental-health nonprofit, and several podcasters. |
| 3. The plaintiff’s side concedes the absence of confusion elsewhere | Jordan’s remark about “Bad Mormon,” set against the Church’s earlier opposition to that very mark on confusion grounds. |
| 4. The process delivers the result regardless of the verdict | Gay withdrew before any ruling. Dehlin’s foundation absorbs costs every month the motion to dismiss remains pending. |
No single condition proves bad faith. A trademark owner may reasonably prioritize its enforcement. It may negotiate for more than it could win in court. It may also change its view of an earlier dispute. When all four conditions appear in the same record, though, a charitable reading grows harder to maintain. The September supplement moved this case from three of the four conditions to all four.
A Question From the Pulpit
The August analysis asked, in its title, whether “come unto Christ” now runs through the courthouse door. Scripture has spoken to that question for two thousand years. When Paul rebuked the Corinthian church for taking disputes before pagan judges, he did not argue about the merits of the cases. He raised a different standard entirely.
“Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?”
— 1 Corinthians 6:7, King James Version
A Latter-day Saint reader could reasonably object that Paul was addressing disputes among fellow believers, and that the Church no longer counts Dehlin as one. The objection has some weight, but it does not reach the heart of Paul’s concern. His worry was the church’s witness before outsiders, and outsiders are exactly who are watching this case: federal judges, the ACLU, a digital-rights foundation, national newspapers, and a reality-television star. An institution that claims to be the restored Church of Jesus Christ invites being measured against the apostle’s standard. By that measure, the more serious question is not whether the lawsuit is legally vexatious. It is whether the Church can explain why suffering a podcast’s name was a wrong it could not bear after twenty years of bearing it.
The Verdict of Function
The Church will probably never be formally labeled a vexatious litigant, and it should not be under the doctrines as they now exist. That is the point. The formal category was built for the prisoner with a stack of petitions. It was not built for a well-funded institution with a single, carefully drafted complaint. The Mormon Stories case shows how a plaintiff can meet every procedural requirement while the process itself does the damage. Until the law closes that gap, whether through a federal anti-SLAPP statute, a broader adoption of Rogers, or a vigorous use of Octane, readers will have to judge such cases by what they accomplish. On that measure, the Church’s own attorney has now added to the record.
❦ ❦ ❦
Conclusion: The Word That Would Not Stay Abandoned
The church may yet win something here — perhaps on the logo, perhaps on the photographs. It is having a much harder time winning on the word. An institution that spent six years teaching the world to stop saying “Mormon” now asks a federal court to treat that same word as a signal so strong that one podcast’s use of it misleads the public. Meanwhile, the word keeps living its independent life: on Arizona lakes, Broadway stages, streaming menus, merchandise racks and the lips of critics and believers alike.
David Jordan went on a friendly podcast to explain why Mormon Stories is different. In doing so, he may have explained why it is not. Heather Gay backed down. John Dehlin, so far, has not. The judge now has to decide whether the church is protecting a brand or policing a conversation — and the church’s own words are part of the record.
❦ ❦ ❦
Sources
The Salt Lake Tribune, “How a pro-LDS Church podcast might have just complicated the faith’s case against ‘Mormon Stories,’” Sept. 30, 2026.
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/09/30/new-twist-lds-churchs-lawsuit/
Hemant Mehta, “The Mormon Church’s own lawyer just undermined its case against John Dehlin,” Friendly Atheist, Sept. 30, 2026.
https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/the-mormon-churchs-own-lawyer-just
Defendants’ “Bad Mormon” supplemental filing (via Friendly Atheist), September 2026.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gmtclmugi7ioohm3oek41/BadMormonSupplement.pdf?rlkey=u1q896vqj2ne86jgg5a342ltg&dl=0
Deseret News, “Church says trademark lawsuit is about eliminating confusion caused by podcaster,” Aug. 20, 2026.
https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/08/20/church-says-trademark-lawsuit-is-about-eliminating-confusion-caused-by-podcaster/
Deseret News, “Church of Jesus Christ files trademark complaint against podcaster,” April 19, 2026.
https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/04/19/church-of-jesus-christ-files-trademark-complaint-against-podcaster-for-alleged-imitation-of-brands/
Missouri Lawyers Media, “LDS church sues to stop excommunicated podcaster from using ‘Mormon’ label,” June 23, 2026.
https://molawyersmedia.com/2026/06/23/lds-church-mormon-trademark-lawsuit-podcast/
Mormon Stories, press release and “Setting the Record Straight” Q&A, June 22, 2026.
https://www.mormonstories.org/countersuit-qanda/
ABC4 Utah, “‘Mormon belongs to the public’: Podcaster files response,” June 2026.
https://www.abc4.com/news/religion/podcaster-responds-lds-church-trademark-infringement/
Law News, “The Latter-Day Saints Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Could Backfire,” 2026.
https://www.lawnews.co.uk/legal-news/the-latter-day-saints-trademark-infringement-lawsuit-could-backfire-in-ways-nobody-expected/
Slate, “The Mormon church is suing a podcaster. The reason why seems silly. It isn’t.” May 2026.
https://slate.com/life/2026/05/mormon-stories-church-lds-lawsuit-trademark.html
Techdirt, “The LDS Church Opposes ‘Bad Mormon’ Trademark Application,” Feb. 13, 2023.
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/13/the-lds-church-opposes-bad-mormon-trademark-application-over-tarnishment-concerns/
Mandour & Associates, “After ‘Bad Mormon’ Win, LDS Targets ‘Mormons for the Devils’ Trademark.”
https://www.mandourlaw.com/mormons-for-the-devils-lds-trademark-dispute/
Mormonism Research Ministry, “‘Mormon’ History” and “Can We Still Use the Term ‘Mormon’?”
https://mrm.org/mormon-history
By Common Consent, “Trademark Mormon,” Aug. 16, 2018.
https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/08/16/trademark-mormon/
Mormonism Explained, “Church of Jesus Christ Sues John Dehlin.”
https://mormonismexplained.org/church-sues-mormon-stories-john-dehlin/
Meridian Magazine, “Protecting the Symbols of Christ’s Church,” April 2026.
https://latterdaysaintmag.com/protecting-the-symbols-of-christs-church-how-a-trademark-lawsuit-aligns-with-prophetic-guidance/
Radio Free Mormon, Episode 480, “Will The Church’s Lawsuit Be Dismissed?” Sept. 26, 2026.
https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2026/09/will-the-churchs-lawsuit-be-dismissed-rfm-480/
Righteous Cause, “Vexatious by Design: When the LDS Church Says ‘Come Unto Christ,’ Does It Mean Through the Courthouse Door?” The Righteous Cause, Aug. 29, 2026.
https://novus2.com/righteouscause/2026/08/29/vexatious-by-design-when-the-lds-church-says-come-unto-christ-does-it-mean-through-the-courthouse-door/
Hemant Mehta, “The Mormon Church’s own lawyer just undermined its case against John Dehlin,” Friendly Atheist, Sept. 30, 2026.
https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/the-mormon-churchs-own-lawyer-just
Electronic Frontier Foundation, amicus curiae brief, filed Aug. 7, 2026.
https://www.eff.org/files/2026/08/10/70_eff_amicus_brief_0.pdf
Cases and authorities: Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1989) · City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 499 U.S. 365 (1991) · Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) · Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) · Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014) · Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. AmeriCulture, Inc., 885 F.3d 659 (10th Cir. 2018) · Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) · Utah Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, Utah Code § 78B-25-101 et seq. (2023) · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 1 Corinthians 6:1–8 (KJV).