{"id":8850,"date":"2026-09-30T10:14:28","date_gmt":"2026-09-30T17:14:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/?p=8850"},"modified":"2026-09-30T10:14:28","modified_gmt":"2026-09-30T17:14:28","slug":"bad-mormon-good-evidence-the-podcast-interview-that-could-sink-the-lds-churchs-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/2026\/09\/30\/bad-mormon-good-evidence-the-podcast-interview-that-could-sink-the-lds-churchs-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Bad Mormon, Good Evidence: The Podcast Interview That Could Sink the LDS Church\u2019s Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"

How a church lawyer\u2019s friendly podcast interview \u2014 and a marketplace crowded with the word \u201cMormon\u201d \u2014 are complicating the LDS Church\u2019s trademark case against John Dehlin<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2766 \u2766 \u2766<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s court papers.<\/p>\n

That is where attorney David Jordan\u2019s September appearance on Keystone<\/i>, a podcast sympathetic to the church, has now landed. Within days, lawyers for John Dehlin \u2014 founder of the Mormon Stories Podcast<\/i> in 2005, excommunicated for apostasy in 2015, and now a federal defendant \u2014 filed a four-page supplement arguing that Jordan\u2019s own words expose the church\u2019s trademark enforcement as something other than what the church says it is. On September 30, The Salt Lake Tribune<\/i> 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\u2019s intellectual-property machinery.<\/p>\n

\u201cDon\u2019t be intimidated into backing down the way I was.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Heather Gay, star of The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City, to John Dehlin, as reported by The Salt Lake Tribune, Sept. 30, 2026<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

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 \u201cMormon\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>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?<\/p>\n

\u2766 \u2766 \u2766<\/span><\/p>\n

I. How We Got Here<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

The Letters Before the Lawsuit<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

The conflict did not begin in a courtroom. In November 2025, the church\u2019s intellectual-property manager wrote to Dehlin\u2019s Open Stories Foundation. According to the Deseret News<\/i>, the podcast responded by recoloring its logo orange, altering its style, removing church-copyrighted images and adding the church\u2019s preferred non-affiliation disclaimer to its show descriptions. What Dehlin refused to do was open every episode with a spoken disclaimer \u2014 or, by his account, drop the word \u201cMormon\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> from the name altogether.<\/p>\n

Mormon Stories<\/i> was not the only target. In December 2025, the Tribune<\/i> reported that at least three critical podcasts had been pressed over the \u201cM-word.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> Bill Reel, whose network includes Mormon Discussions<\/i> and Radio Free Mormon<\/i>, said a church paralegal contacted him after he sought to register those names. The November email, shared with The Washington Post<\/i>, struck a conciliatory tone while holding the line.<\/p>\n

The church \u201chas an obligation to protect its MORMON trademarks as unique identifiers to prevent confusion.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Church paralegal\u2019s email to Bill Reel, as reported by The Washington Post via Missouri Lawyers Media, June 23, 2026<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Case in Court<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

On April 17, 2026, after mediation failed, the church and Intellectual Reserve, Inc. \u2014 the nonprofit that holds title to its trademarks and copyrights \u2014 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 \u201cMormon\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>were combined to imitate church branding, and that copyrighted church photographs were used without permission.<\/p>\n

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<\/i>, Mormon Messages<\/i> and Book of Mormon Stories<\/i>. His defense rests on the First Amendment, on two decades of unchallenged use, and on a theory of abandonment rooted in the church\u2019s own rebrand.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe LDS Church does not own the word \u2018Mormon.\u2019\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 John Dehlin, Mormon Stories press release, June 22, 2026<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In August, the ACLU of Utah and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed amicus briefs on Dehlin\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cDehlin can criticize the church as he chooses, and he can use Mormon in connection with his podcast.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Church attorneys\u2019 response to the motion to dismiss, as reported by the Deseret News, Aug. 20, 2026<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The qualifier is the whole case. The church argues Dehlin uses \u201cMormon Stories\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> as a trademark<\/i> \u2014 unregistered, but a brand nonetheless \u2014 and that in its visual packaging it trades on the church\u2019s identity. By late September, Radio Free Mormon<\/i> reported, the briefing on the motion to dismiss was complete. Then came Keystone<\/i>.<\/p>\n

\u2766 \u2766 \u2766<\/span><\/p>\n

II. The Interview That Became an Exhibit<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

\u201cCommon Sense\u201d and a Blue Circle<\/i><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

As transcribed by Hemant Mehta of Friendly Atheist<\/i>, 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<\/i> of confusion, not a body count, and invited listeners to apply common sense to the blue circle, the light rays and the words \u201cMormon Stories,\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> which he said suggest affiliation to an ordinary person.<\/p>\n

Then he drew a contrast. Other uses of the word, he suggested, obviously signal independence. His examples were Mormon.ish<\/i> \u2014 and Heather Gay\u2019s Bad Mormon<\/i>.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou\u2019re not thinking, \u2018Oh, I bet that\u2019s affiliated with the Church.\u2019\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 David Jordan, church attorney, on the Keystone podcast, discussing \u201cBad Mormon,\u201d as transcribed by Hemant Mehta, Friendly Atheist, Sept. 30, 2026<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Problem With the Example<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

The church did not treat Bad Mormon<\/i> 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.<\/p>\n

The church called \u201cBad Mormon\u201d \u201cvirtually identical to the church\u2019s Mormon marks.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Summary of the church\u2019s USPTO opposition, Techdirt, Feb. 13, 2023<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Dehlin\u2019s lawyers pounced. Their supplement argues that if the church\u2019s own counsel now concedes no reasonable person would link Bad Mormon<\/i> to the church, then the year-long opposition that wore Gay down was never about confusion at all.<\/p>\n

The church and its attorneys \u201cintentionally misuse federal trademark law as a tool of coercion.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Defendants\u2019 supplemental filing, Intellectual Reserve v. Dehlin, D. Utah, September 2026<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A footnote widens the lens, listing other applications the church has opposed: Mormon Whiskey<\/i>, Mormons for the Devils<\/i>, Mormonboyz<\/i> and Secret Mormon<\/i>. Few observers would mistake a whiskey brand for a product of a church that forbids alcohol.<\/p>\n

A Fair Reading<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

In fairness to Jordan, opposing a registration<\/i> and suing for infringement<\/i> are different proceedings with overlapping but distinct standards. A church lawyer can coherently argue that granting someone exclusive federal rights in \u201cBad Mormon\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>raises false-connection concerns even if a book title confuses no one. But the church\u2019s 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<\/i> itself is the punishment. On that narrower point, Jordan\u2019s candor did his client no favors.<\/p>\n

\u2766 \u2766 \u2766<\/span><\/p>\n

III. Counting \u201cMormon\u201d: A Crowded Marketplace<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

No One Has Taken the Census<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

How many unaffiliated businesses, ministries, media properties and organizations use \u201cMormon\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> in their names? The honest answer is that nobody has published an authoritative count \u2014 not the church, not Dehlin\u2019s legal team, and not this publication. Dehlin\u2019s side puts the figure in the hundreds.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026neither do any of the other hundreds of businesses, non-profits, churches, or operations that use the word.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Mormon Stories, \u201cSetting the Record Straight\u201d Q&A, June 22, 2026<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That claim is plausible, and probably conservative once geography, history, entertainment, and commerce are included. But it is an advocate\u2019s estimate. A rigorous tally would require searching live and dead marks in the USPTO\u2019s trademark database, then cross-checking state business registries such as Utah\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

A Partial Inventory<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

What can be documented is the breadth of the word\u2019s independent life:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Category<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/td>\nUnaffiliated Examples<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/td>\nChurch Action on Record<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Geography & public history<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nMormon Lake (Arizona), Mormon Row (Grand Teton National Park), the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nNone known<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Entertainment<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nThe Book of Mormon (Broadway musical); The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives (Hulu)<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nNo suit; church bought ads in the musical\u2019s programs<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Critics & ministries<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nMormon Stories; Mormon Discussions; Radio Free Mormon; Mormon.ish; Mormonism Research Ministry<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nLetters to podcasters; lawsuit against Dehlin only<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Merchandise & commerce<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nBad Mormon; Mormon Whiskey; Mormons for the Devils; Mormonboyz; Secret Mormon; Mormon Match<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nOppositions to federal registration<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Natural science<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nThe Mormon cricket and other species bearing the name<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nNone, naturally<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The Pattern Behind the Pattern<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

The inventory reveals the church\u2019s actual enforcement philosophy. It overwhelmingly polices registrations<\/i> \u2014 attempts to claim exclusive federal rights \u2014 rather than uses<\/i>. It did not sue Broadway; it advertised alongside it. It did not sue Hulu. The blog By Common Consent<\/i> reported in 2018 that the church had even acquired marks such as \u201cMormon Savings\u201d and \u201cMormon in Manhattan\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> to bolster its position. And the church runs a licensing program: the explainer site Mormonism Explained<\/i> says it operates under a standard license from Intellectual Reserve covering \u201cMormon\u201d and \u201cMormonism.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

That history cuts both ways. For the church, it shows a trademark owner actively policing its marks \u2014 exactly what the law expects. For Dehlin, it shows that thousands of Americans encounter \u201cMormon\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>daily in contexts the church neither controls nor objects to, which makes the word a poor badge of exclusive origin.<\/p>\n

Why a Crowded Field Matters in Court<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

Federal courts in the Tenth Circuit, which includes Utah, weigh six factors in judging likelihood of confusion: similarity of the marks, the defendant\u2019s intent, evidence of actual confusion, similarity of the products and how they are marketed, the care consumers exercise, and the strength of the plaintiff\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

The government has already hinted at the problem. In refusing a third party\u2019s attempt to register MORMON for religious services, a USPTO examining attorney found the word generic in that class.<\/p>\n

MORMON is \u201cincapable of serving as a source-identifier for applicant\u2019s religious services.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 USPTO final refusal, as documented by Mormonism Research Ministry<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The church\u2019s registrations, by contrast, cover narrower territory such as educational services in history and religion \u2014 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\u2019s claim to the specific niche where Dehlin operates.<\/p>\n

The View From Arizona<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

Readers in the East Valley need no tutorial on how ordinary the word is. Mormon Lake sits south of Flagstaff. Mesa\u2019s pioneer history is woven into its street grid. And Mormons for the Devils<\/i> \u2014 a merchandise line apparently aimed at Latter-day Saint fans of Arizona State\u2019s Sun Devils \u2014 drew a church opposition of its own. Here, \u201cMormon\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>is a demographic, a heritage and a punchline long before it is a brand.<\/p>\n

\u2766 \u2766 \u2766<\/span><\/p>\n

IV. The Rebrand Boomerang<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

In October 2018, President Russell M. Nelson told the church that nicknames such as \u201cMormon Church\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> removed the Savior\u2019s name and handed the adversary a win.<\/p>\n

Setting aside the church\u2019s full name is \u201ca major victory for Satan.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 President Russell M. Nelson, October 2018 General Conference, as cited in Dehlin\u2019s filings reported by ABC4 Utah, June 2026<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

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\u2019s filings argue the church abandoned MORMON as a mark while telling the USPTO otherwise in renewals \u2014 and, more cleverly, that the rebrand taught the public that \u201cMormon\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>now signals non<\/i>-official content. On that view, the church\u2019s own campaign made confusion less likely.<\/p>\n

The church counters with history.<\/p>\n

The church has \u201ccontinuously used in commerce marks incorporating the term MORMON for nearly 200 years.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Church complaint, as quoted by Meridian Magazine, April 2026<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

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<\/i> 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 \u201cMormon\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> comes from Salt Lake.<\/p>\n

\u2766 \u2766 \u2766<\/span><\/p>\n

V. Why \u201cAs a Trademark\u201d Is Everything<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

The church\u2019s insistence that Dehlin uses \u201cMormon Stories\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> 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<\/i> test, which shields titles and artistic uses unless they are explicitly misleading. In Jack Daniel\u2019s Properties v. VIP Products<\/i> (2023) \u2014 the case of a dog toy parodying a whiskey bottle \u2014 the Court held that this shield does not apply when a defendant uses a mark as a designation of source for its own goods.<\/p>\n

If \u201cMormon Stories\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>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 \u2014 where the church\u2019s logo evidence carries more weight. The supplement\u2019s \u201ccoercion\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> framing is aimed squarely at keeping the judge focused on speech.<\/p>\n

\u2766 \u2766 \u2766<\/span><\/p>\n

VI. What the Church Still Has<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

A serious report must acknowledge the church\u2019s 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<\/i> observed that most describe only momentary confusion. The old blue-circle logo with light rays did resemble church design language, although Dehlin\u2019s response claims the podcast used light rays before the church adopted its own \u201clight ray design.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> And the church does hold a registered mark in Book of Mormon Stories<\/i>, a children\u2019s title with a genuine name overlap.<\/p>\n

The church\u2019s 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 \u2014 and, now, their own colleague\u2019s podcast remarks.<\/p>\n

\u2766 \u2766 \u2766<\/span><\/p>\n

VII. What to Watch<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

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 \u201cMormon\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>dispute. Third, discovery. Should the case survive, Dehlin\u2019s lawyers will seek internal church communications about the rebrand and its enforcement strategy \u2014 documents a publicity-conscious institution may prefer never see daylight. Finally, the court of public opinion, where the Tribune<\/i>\u2019s Mormon Land<\/i> podcast has already asked whether the church can win the lawsuit and still lose the public-relations war.<\/p>\n

\u2766 \u2766 \u2766<\/span><\/p>\n

VIII. Vexatious, Reconsidered<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

When the Process Is the Penalty \u2014 and the Plaintiff\u2019s Own Lawyer Supplies the Evidence<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A Word Reserved for the Weak<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

In American courtrooms, the label \u201cvexatious\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>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\u2019s leading case on the subject, Tripati v. Beaman<\/i> (1989), concerned a prisoner who had flooded the courts with pro se petitions. The typical vexatious litigant, in the law\u2019s imagination, is a lone figure with too much time and too little money, filing again and again.<\/p>\n

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<\/i> now lives.<\/p>\n

What the August Analysis Established<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

This publication\u2019s August 29 analysis, \u201cVexatious by Design,\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> walked through the four legal mechanisms that might address abusive litigation: Rule 11 sanctions, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1927, fee-shifting in \u201cexceptional cases\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> under Lanham Act \u00a7 35(a), and the tort of malicious prosecution. Its conclusions were deliberately restrained. The Church\u2019s complaint is not sanctionable. Malicious prosecution is a dead end. The realistic vehicle is a fee award under Octane Fitness<\/i> if the case is dismissed.<\/p>\n

It also placed the Electronic Frontier Foundation\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cThose are not the numbers of a contest between equals. They are the numbers of a siege.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 The Righteous Cause blog, \u201cVexatious by Design,\u201d The Righteous Cause, Aug. 29, 2026<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What that analysis lacked was evidence of purpose. It could show that the Church\u2019s 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\u2019s side acknowledging that one of its enforcement targets posed no real risk of confusion. September supplied one.<\/p>\n

The Missing Piece Arrives<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

When attorney David Jordan told the Keystone<\/i> podcast that no one seeing \u201cBad Mormon\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>would think the Church was behind it, he did something the Church\u2019s briefs had carefully avoided. He conceded the merits of a dispute the Church had already pursued to its conclusion. The Church opposed Heather Gay\u2019s application on likelihood-of-confusion grounds, among others. Gay withdrew. On Jordan\u2019s account, the Church spent more than a year pressing a confusion claim that its own counsel now regards as obviously weak.<\/p>\n

That matters under the fee-shifting standard. Octane Fitness<\/i> directs courts to look at the totality of the circumstances, and it points to factors drawn from copyright law, including a litigant\u2019s motivation<\/i> and the need for deterrence<\/i>. Among the evidence a court could weigh on motivation, few things are stronger than a party\u2019s own lawyer describing an earlier enforcement action as one the law never required.<\/p>\n

The language of the defendants\u2019 September supplement is also worth noticing. It accuses the Church of wielding the burdensome process<\/i>, rather than the merits, to force changes. Whether or not the drafters meant it to, that phrasing echoes the Supreme Court\u2019s definition of a \u201csham\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> lawsuit in antitrust law.<\/p>\n

A sham suit uses \u201cthe governmental process\u2014as opposed to the outcome of that process\u201d as a weapon.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures, 508 U.S. 49, 61 (1993), quoting City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising (1991)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Honesty requires stating the limit plainly. The sham doctrine belongs to antitrust. Even there, it requires a showing that the suit was objectively baseless<\/i> before any inquiry into motive begins. The Church\u2019s 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<\/i> dispute is a case study in that distinction.<\/p>\n

The Gap Where Vexatious Suits Live<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

If the problem is that process punishes, the obvious remedy is a procedure that ends weak cases early and shifts the defendant\u2019s costs to the plaintiff. Most states have one: an anti-SLAPP statute, aimed at \u201cstrategic lawsuits against public participation.\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>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\u2019s fees.<\/p>\n

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<\/i> (2018), went further and held that New Mexico\u2019s 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\u2019s main anti-SLAPP protection does not reach.<\/p>\n

This explains why both amicus briefs pressed so hard for an early resolution. The Electronic Frontier Foundation\u2019s request that the court adopt the Rogers v. Grimaldi<\/i> 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.<\/p>\n

Heather Gay as Proof of Concept<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

EFF\u2019s 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\u2019s, and she still decided that defending a merchandise trademark was not worth the fight.<\/p>\n

\u201cDon\u2019t be intimidated into backing down the way I was.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Heather Gay to John Dehlin, as reported by The Salt Lake Tribune, Sept. 30, 2026<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Her word is intimidated<\/i>. 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.<\/p>\n

Toward a Functional Definition<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

The law\u2019s 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<\/i>, whatever its formal merit, when four conditions are met together:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Functional Test<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/td>\nWhat the Record Shows<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1. The remedy sought exceeds the injury pleaded<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nIn public, the Church says the case concerns logos and colors. By Dehlin\u2019s account, the private mediation demands included renaming the show \u201cEx-Mormon Stories\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>and permanently giving up any trademark claim to the name.<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2. Enforcement tracks resources, not harm<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nThe 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.<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3. The plaintiff\u2019s side concedes the absence of confusion elsewhere<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nJordan\u2019s remark about \u201cBad Mormon,\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> set against the Church\u2019s earlier opposition to that very mark on confusion grounds.<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4. The process delivers the result regardless of the verdict<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nGay withdrew before any ruling. Dehlin\u2019s foundation absorbs costs every month the motion to dismiss remains pending.<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

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.<\/p>\n

A Question From the Pulpit<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

The August analysis asked, in its title, whether \u201ccome unto Christ\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhy do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 1 Corinthians 6:7, King James Version<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

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\u2019s concern. His worry was the church\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s name was a wrong it could not bear after twenty years of bearing it.<\/p>\n

The Verdict of Function<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/h3>\n

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<\/i> 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<\/i>, or a vigorous use of Octane<\/i>, readers will have to judge such cases by what they accomplish. On that measure, the Church\u2019s own attorney has now added to the record.<\/p>\n

\u2766 \u2766 \u2766<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion: The Word That Would Not Stay Abandoned<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

The church may yet win something here \u2014 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 \u201cMormon\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> now asks a federal court to treat that same word as a signal so strong that one podcast\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

David Jordan went on a friendly podcast to explain why Mormon Stories<\/i> 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 \u2014 and the church\u2019s own words are part of the record.<\/p>\n

\u2766 \u2766 \u2766<\/span><\/p>\n

Sources<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

The Salt Lake Tribune,<\/strong> \u201cHow a pro-LDS Church podcast might have just complicated the faith\u2019s case against \u2018Mormon Stories,\u2019\u201d Sept. 30, 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/www.sltrib.com\/religion\/2026\/09\/30\/new-twist-lds-churchs-lawsuit\/
\nHemant Mehta,<\/strong> \u201cThe Mormon Church\u2019s own lawyer just undermined its case against John Dehlin,\u201d Friendly Atheist, Sept. 30, 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/www.friendlyatheist.com\/p\/the-mormon-churchs-own-lawyer-just
\nDefendants\u2019 \u201cBad Mormon\u201d supplemental filing<\/strong> (via Friendly Atheist), September 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/www.dropbox.com\/scl\/fi\/gmtclmugi7ioohm3oek41\/BadMormonSupplement.pdf?rlkey=u1q896vqj2ne86jgg5a342ltg&dl=0
\nDeseret News,<\/strong> \u201cChurch says trademark lawsuit is about eliminating confusion caused by podcaster,\u201d Aug. 20, 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/www.deseret.com\/faith\/2026\/08\/20\/church-says-trademark-lawsuit-is-about-eliminating-confusion-caused-by-podcaster\/
\nDeseret News,<\/strong> \u201cChurch of Jesus Christ files trademark complaint against podcaster,\u201d April 19, 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/www.deseret.com\/faith\/2026\/04\/19\/church-of-jesus-christ-files-trademark-complaint-against-podcaster-for-alleged-imitation-of-brands\/
\nMissouri Lawyers Media,<\/strong> \u201cLDS church sues to stop excommunicated podcaster from using \u2018Mormon\u2019 label,\u201d June 23, 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/molawyersmedia.com\/2026\/06\/23\/lds-church-mormon-trademark-lawsuit-podcast\/
\nMormon Stories, press release<\/strong> and \u201cSetting the Record Straight\u201d Q&A, June 22, 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/www.mormonstories.org\/countersuit-qanda\/
\nABC4 Utah,<\/strong> \u201c\u2018Mormon belongs to the public\u2019: Podcaster files response,\u201d June 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/www.abc4.com\/news\/religion\/podcaster-responds-lds-church-trademark-infringement\/
\nLaw News,<\/strong> \u201cThe Latter-Day Saints Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Could Backfire,\u201d 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/www.lawnews.co.uk\/legal-news\/the-latter-day-saints-trademark-infringement-lawsuit-could-backfire-in-ways-nobody-expected\/
\nSlate,<\/strong> \u201cThe Mormon church is suing a podcaster. The reason why seems silly. It isn\u2019t.\u201d May 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/slate.com\/life\/2026\/05\/mormon-stories-church-lds-lawsuit-trademark.html
\nTechdirt,<\/strong> \u201cThe LDS Church Opposes \u2018Bad Mormon\u2019 Trademark Application,\u201d Feb. 13, 2023.
\nhttps:\/\/www.techdirt.com\/2023\/02\/13\/the-lds-church-opposes-bad-mormon-trademark-application-over-tarnishment-concerns\/
\nMandour & Associates,<\/strong> \u201cAfter \u2018Bad Mormon\u2019 Win, LDS Targets \u2018Mormons for the Devils\u2019 Trademark.\u201d
\nhttps:\/\/www.mandourlaw.com\/mormons-for-the-devils-lds-trademark-dispute\/
\nMormonism Research Ministry,<\/strong> \u201c\u2018Mormon\u2019 History\u201d and \u201cCan We Still Use the Term \u2018Mormon\u2019?\u201d
\nhttps:\/\/mrm.org\/mormon-history
\nBy Common Consent,<\/strong> \u201cTrademark Mormon,\u201d Aug. 16, 2018.
\nhttps:\/\/bycommonconsent.com\/2018\/08\/16\/trademark-mormon\/
\nMormonism Explained,<\/strong> \u201cChurch of Jesus Christ Sues John Dehlin.\u201d
\nhttps:\/\/mormonismexplained.org\/church-sues-mormon-stories-john-dehlin\/
\nMeridian Magazine,<\/strong> \u201cProtecting the Symbols of Christ\u2019s Church,\u201d April 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/latterdaysaintmag.com\/protecting-the-symbols-of-christs-church-how-a-trademark-lawsuit-aligns-with-prophetic-guidance\/
\nRadio Free Mormon,<\/strong> Episode 480, \u201cWill The Church\u2019s Lawsuit Be Dismissed?\u201d Sept. 26, 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/mormondiscussionpodcast.org\/2026\/09\/will-the-churchs-lawsuit-be-dismissed-rfm-480\/
\nRighteous Cause<\/span><\/strong>,<\/strong> \u201cVexatious by Design: When the LDS Church Says \u2018Come Unto Christ,\u2019 Does It Mean Through the Courthouse Door?\u201d The Righteous Cause, Aug. 29, 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/2026\/08\/29\/vexatious-by-design-when-the-lds-church-says-come-unto-christ-does-it-mean-through-the-courthouse-door\/
\nHemant Mehta,<\/strong> \u201cThe Mormon Church\u2019s own lawyer just undermined its case against John Dehlin,\u201d Friendly Atheist, Sept. 30, 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/www.friendlyatheist.com\/p\/the-mormon-churchs-own-lawyer-just
\nElectronic Frontier Foundation,<\/strong> amicus curiae brief, filed Aug. 7, 2026.
\nhttps:\/\/www.eff.org\/files\/2026\/08\/10\/70_eff_amicus_brief_0.pdf<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Cases and authorities: Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1989) \u00b7 City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 499 U.S. 365 (1991) \u00b7 Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) \u00b7 Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) \u00b7 Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014) \u00b7 Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. AmeriCulture, Inc., 885 F.3d 659 (10th Cir. 2018) \u00b7 Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) \u00b7 Utah Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, Utah Code \u00a7 78B-25-101 et seq. (2023) \u00b7 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1651 \u00b7 1 Corinthians 6:1\u20138 (KJV).<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

How a church lawyer\u2019s friendly podcast interview \u2014 and a marketplace crowded with the word \u201cMormon\u201d \u2014 are complicating the LDS Church\u2019s trademark case against John Dehlin \u2766 \u2766 \u2766 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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8851,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[47,44,45],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-book-of-mormon","category-latter-day-saints","category-mormonism"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/LDS-Lawsuit.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8850"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8850\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8852,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8850\/revisions\/8852"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8851"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}