Worth noting the LDS church never went after South Park - even though most when most people hear the words 'mormon' or 'Joseph Smith', the rely is Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb., Dumb.
If the LDS-church has the word "Mormon" trade marked, they admit it is used for trade. They sell false hope into a good afterlife for big money to customers who can't complain afterwards when they don't get what was promised. The conclusion is that the LDS-church is a for profit commercial organisation that must be taxed.
I categorize the Mormon Church under the heading ‘Some people will believe anything.’ It’s about one notch above Scientology. From what I’ve seen, the real message of the Mormons is conformity at all costs, and woe be unto whomever gets out of line.
Mr Dehlin needs to file an anti-SLAPP motion. Surprisingly, Utah has strong anti-SLAPP protections.
"Signed into law in 2023, Utah’s Public Expression Act[1] “enacts the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act,” and hews closely to the Uniform Law Commission’s model law."
That's not going to help him. It would if the lawsuit was about his criticism or claims they say are false, but it's not. It's a simple infringement case.
Trademark law doesn't apply to legitimate criticism and news. Hasbro hasn't sued YouTubers with video titles like "Hasbro has destroyed D&D" for example. Disney hasn't sued over things like "How Disney ruined Star Wars" and they've sued over trivial things before.
Where is the infringement? It is only infringement of his use actually caused confusion such that a reasonable person would think his podcast was an official Church communication.
The Mormon Church is a SNOWFLAKE! Wowie-zowie, who woulda thunk it? As Hemant notes, they don't go after the smash hit show, The Book of Mormon, nor do they attempt to force the cancellation of The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, but when a podcaster takes well-aimed shots at their bow, their Mormon underwear gets all in a twist!
I've heard of "low-hanging fruit," but this one takes the taco.
They are going after the podcaster because their sheep might take him more seriously than they see entertainment media. Pointing out their flaws as entertainment can be ignored as "persecution" at best, pointing out their flaws directly and asking their flock to actually think about them is dangerous to their membership and cash flow.
Oh, gee, now a multi-billion-dollar organization is feeling all persecuted? Other churches get criticized and they manage, but when the Mormons are under fire, they want to get all huffy.
I'd be sorely tempted to go all Col. Nathan R. Jessup on their asses and tell them, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
Hate to inform the LDS, but astronomically speaking? There is no Kolob. No star, no planet and no governing body that controls other worlds. It's just a Mormon concept.
Yeah, it parallels all other religions that too are just a concept, because their gods only exist in the minds of the brainwashed, delusional and gullible people.
The court should levy a fine against the Mormon church for wasting the court's time with a blatantly frivolous lawsuit. And given the LDS' obscene wealth, the fine should a hefty one.
This is a SLAPP suit aimed at directly at John Dehlin to silence him. The mormon church has been well aware of Dehlin and the content of his podcast for decades. In 2016, when a now-former mormon named Jeremy Runnells wrote a detailed take-down of church history known as the CES Letter, church officials specifically quoted from his 3-part interview on Mormon Stories as 'evidence' of Runnells' apostasy before kicking him out of the church.
Dehlin also faced a church trial for apostasy and was kicked out. But it's pretty clear that even though Dehlin quit the church, they can't quit him. His podcast is popular and growing; the church is bleeding membership, especially among the young. But instead of using their vast wealth [and it is VAST] to promote the church, they're going after a podcaster because he's more effective than they are.
Stay strong, John. You have the truth on your side, and this lawsuit should be thrown out of court.
For what it's worth, I started listening to Mormon Stories a couple of years ago. I'm not Mormon. Never once did I think Mormon Stories is in any way connected to the LDS Church. Never did John Dehlin or his guests say or imply that the podcast is connected to the LDS Church. It was always obvious to me that Mormon Stories is a completely separate entity from the LDS Church.
The church is in the right here, and will certainly win. This is a simple case of trademark infringement — everything else, including the obvious fact that they're using trademark law to silence criticism — is not at issue and is irrelevant to this case.
The only thing that matters is "the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark on or in connection with goods and/or services in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods and/or services." (15 U.S.C. §§1114, 1116-1118) I don't think there's even any dispute over that basic fact. He used the church's common name and visual branding.
Criticize everything that needs to be criticized, but do it in a safe and legal way: cover your ass. I have scicomm friends who have exposed full-on fraudsters on their blogs in a way that crossed the line into defamation, and they had to pay the price. Look both ways before you cross the street, people.
I challenge you to find a single church that hasn't trademarked its name. The fact that his defense does not claim the mark is invalid shows that even his lawyers know that's not a defense.
You couldn't trademark "Christianity" because that's a general, broad term; but you can absolutely trademark the specific name of your church, i.e., "First Church of Jesus" or whatever.
When they switched from Mormon to LDS, they lost claim to it. "Wiccan" isn't trademarked either but that doesn't some people from using it in the name of podcasts and books. Mormon shouldn't be allowed to trademark their name if they're a church.
It's somewhat complicated by The Book of Mormon being a thing, but I have to wonder how the church NOT suing over the name of the musical would factor in. People are always saying that companies/ organizations MUST sue to preserve trademarks, so by that logic that should weaken this case.
There are a number of issues here. First, "Book of Mormon" is a book title, and titles cannot be copyrighted, and previous case law has found books of scripture to be in the public domain anyway. But more importantly, the church (very publicly) decided early on to use the broadway musical to their advantage as a promotional tool. Note that you'll never see a production without posters and billboards nearby with any of a number of clever campaign slogans: “You’ve seen the play, now read the book,” “The book is always better,” etc.
So if someone had a podcast entitled, "Methodist Mumblings" or "Baptist Baloney" and the words, "Methodist" and "Baptist" had been similarly trademarked, they could get clobbered, too? Alverant has it right: this is FAIR USE ... and the Mormon church is FAIR GAME.
If he had some trademark, and the church infringed it to criticize him and he sued them for it, would you make the same argument against his claim? Would you defend the church and say "Fair use"? I submit you're simply making whatever argument casts the church as the bad guy, rather than whatever argument is supported by the law.
I'm always hearing that if you don't defend your trademarks, you risk not being able to defend them in the future. This suit coming a good decade after they became aware of the podcast seems like it would against them in that respect. So does the fact that he was cooperative about changing the branding of the logo.
They also have to defend them consistently. If they didn't act on anyone using the name in a positive way, they can't get mad if it's used to criticize them.
I don't know if the church will argue this, but I'd say his accommodation of their requested changes was tacit acknowledgement of the infringement. Where he failed to look both ways was in making the changes without getting a release of future claims in return.
Dum(b) dum(b) dum(b) dum(b) duuum(b)
They don't like Dehlin using the word "Mormon?" Fine. He should switch to Mor(m)on." Let's see the LDS claim copyright infringement on THAT.
Not a lot of people know dumb ends with a b.
And a d is just a backwards b. So there is that.
https://youtu.be/RaRsv1xNT3A?is=QGXX23UbYBBgFh4i
Worth noting the LDS church never went after South Park - even though most when most people hear the words 'mormon' or 'Joseph Smith', the rely is Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb., Dumb.
That's why I made mention of that South Park reference in my opening sentence. :)
FWIW, there's another popular podcast called Nemo the Mormon from the UK. Is the Church of Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb going to go after him, too?
MOR*ON.
If the LDS-church has the word "Mormon" trade marked, they admit it is used for trade. They sell false hope into a good afterlife for big money to customers who can't complain afterwards when they don't get what was promised. The conclusion is that the LDS-church is a for profit commercial organisation that must be taxed.
Maybe a fun "gotcha", but it runs aground on the reality of how trademarks are used.
On a second thought, the LDS church is not a commerce, it's a scam.
A church started by a con man is suing because someone is harshing the con.
Doesn't "church started by a con man" describe all the churches? Asking for a friend.
I categorize the Mormon Church under the heading ‘Some people will believe anything.’ It’s about one notch above Scientology. From what I’ve seen, the real message of the Mormons is conformity at all costs, and woe be unto whomever gets out of line.
The adjectives of Mormonism: controlling, preposterous, highly profitable, cultish, expensive, etc. Sounds like MAGA with an aura of piety.
Indeed it does. Once people become convinced they're operating under divine sanction, they can rationalize an excuse for just about anything.
Right up there with DEUS VULT ... which frankly, makes me want to puke!
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
It’s just 150 years older than Scientology. It’s the Scientology of the early 19th century
The is blatant lawsuit abuse. They want to bankrupt him so he'll have to end the podcast.
Exactly. The process is the punishment.
Mr Dehlin needs to file an anti-SLAPP motion. Surprisingly, Utah has strong anti-SLAPP protections.
"Signed into law in 2023, Utah’s Public Expression Act[1] “enacts the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act,” and hews closely to the Uniform Law Commission’s model law."
https://www.ifs.org/anti-slapp-states/utah/
That's not going to help him. It would if the lawsuit was about his criticism or claims they say are false, but it's not. It's a simple infringement case.
Trademark law doesn't apply to legitimate criticism and news. Hasbro hasn't sued YouTubers with video titles like "Hasbro has destroyed D&D" for example. Disney hasn't sued over things like "How Disney ruined Star Wars" and they've sued over trivial things before.
Where is the infringement? It is only infringement of his use actually caused confusion such that a reasonable person would think his podcast was an official Church communication.
The Mormon Church is a SNOWFLAKE! Wowie-zowie, who woulda thunk it? As Hemant notes, they don't go after the smash hit show, The Book of Mormon, nor do they attempt to force the cancellation of The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, but when a podcaster takes well-aimed shots at their bow, their Mormon underwear gets all in a twist!
I've heard of "low-hanging fruit," but this one takes the taco.
They are going after the podcaster because their sheep might take him more seriously than they see entertainment media. Pointing out their flaws as entertainment can be ignored as "persecution" at best, pointing out their flaws directly and asking their flock to actually think about them is dangerous to their membership and cash flow.
Oh, gee, now a multi-billion-dollar organization is feeling all persecuted? Other churches get criticized and they manage, but when the Mormons are under fire, they want to get all huffy.
I'd be sorely tempted to go all Col. Nathan R. Jessup on their asses and tell them, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
Uh-oh. Hemant used the word "Mormon" to criticize the Mormons. I am ready to donate to his legal defense fund.
John Dehlin, no planet for you!
Oh, and he's SO broken up about that ... NOT!
Hate to inform the LDS, but astronomically speaking? There is no Kolob. No star, no planet and no governing body that controls other worlds. It's just a Mormon concept.
Yeah, it parallels all other religions that too are just a concept, because their gods only exist in the minds of the brainwashed, delusional and gullible people.
When I was 16, I read the Book of Mormon... to quote the French - C'est drôle ça. If you want a good time, have a go at The Book of Ether.
The court should levy a fine against the Mormon church for wasting the court's time with a blatantly frivolous lawsuit. And given the LDS' obscene wealth, the fine should a hefty one.
Hopefully he wins the case getting it dismissed and is awarded legal fees to pay the attorneys.
This is a SLAPP suit aimed at directly at John Dehlin to silence him. The mormon church has been well aware of Dehlin and the content of his podcast for decades. In 2016, when a now-former mormon named Jeremy Runnells wrote a detailed take-down of church history known as the CES Letter, church officials specifically quoted from his 3-part interview on Mormon Stories as 'evidence' of Runnells' apostasy before kicking him out of the church.
Dehlin also faced a church trial for apostasy and was kicked out. But it's pretty clear that even though Dehlin quit the church, they can't quit him. His podcast is popular and growing; the church is bleeding membership, especially among the young. But instead of using their vast wealth [and it is VAST] to promote the church, they're going after a podcaster because he's more effective than they are.
Stay strong, John. You have the truth on your side, and this lawsuit should be thrown out of court.
I think that any court worth its salt will see the difference between punching UP and punching DOWN here.
And a blind man could see which is which in this case.
Punching down has always been a trademark of that church.
Wouldn’t that be straightforward normative use? If the mark is being used to identify the correct owner of the mark, it’s not a violation.
For what it's worth, I started listening to Mormon Stories a couple of years ago. I'm not Mormon. Never once did I think Mormon Stories is in any way connected to the LDS Church. Never did John Dehlin or his guests say or imply that the podcast is connected to the LDS Church. It was always obvious to me that Mormon Stories is a completely separate entity from the LDS Church.
Brian Dunning's comments seem odd in this thread. What do others think about his position on this lawsuit?
I prefer the opinions of his partner, Kruger.
🤣
The church is in the right here, and will certainly win. This is a simple case of trademark infringement — everything else, including the obvious fact that they're using trademark law to silence criticism — is not at issue and is irrelevant to this case.
The only thing that matters is "the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark on or in connection with goods and/or services in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods and/or services." (15 U.S.C. §§1114, 1116-1118) I don't think there's even any dispute over that basic fact. He used the church's common name and visual branding.
Criticize everything that needs to be criticized, but do it in a safe and legal way: cover your ass. I have scicomm friends who have exposed full-on fraudsters on their blogs in a way that crossed the line into defamation, and they had to pay the price. Look both ways before you cross the street, people.
Public domain and fair use apply here. You can't trademark the name of a religion.
You certainly can, and here's the proof: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/78977858
I challenge you to find a single church that hasn't trademarked its name. The fact that his defense does not claim the mark is invalid shows that even his lawyers know that's not a defense.
You couldn't trademark "Christianity" because that's a general, broad term; but you can absolutely trademark the specific name of your church, i.e., "First Church of Jesus" or whatever.
When they switched from Mormon to LDS, they lost claim to it. "Wiccan" isn't trademarked either but that doesn't some people from using it in the name of podcasts and books. Mormon shouldn't be allowed to trademark their name if they're a church.
It's somewhat complicated by The Book of Mormon being a thing, but I have to wonder how the church NOT suing over the name of the musical would factor in. People are always saying that companies/ organizations MUST sue to preserve trademarks, so by that logic that should weaken this case.
There are a number of issues here. First, "Book of Mormon" is a book title, and titles cannot be copyrighted, and previous case law has found books of scripture to be in the public domain anyway. But more importantly, the church (very publicly) decided early on to use the broadway musical to their advantage as a promotional tool. Note that you'll never see a production without posters and billboards nearby with any of a number of clever campaign slogans: “You’ve seen the play, now read the book,” “The book is always better,” etc.
That's a completely groundless claim.
Wiccan is a legitimate religion like Mormonism.
The IRS considers TST a religion and rightly granted it taxexempt status.
So if someone had a podcast entitled, "Methodist Mumblings" or "Baptist Baloney" and the words, "Methodist" and "Baptist" had been similarly trademarked, they could get clobbered, too? Alverant has it right: this is FAIR USE ... and the Mormon church is FAIR GAME.
Fair use applies to copyright, not trademarks.
If he had some trademark, and the church infringed it to criticize him and he sued them for it, would you make the same argument against his claim? Would you defend the church and say "Fair use"? I submit you're simply making whatever argument casts the church as the bad guy, rather than whatever argument is supported by the law.
I'm always hearing that if you don't defend your trademarks, you risk not being able to defend them in the future. This suit coming a good decade after they became aware of the podcast seems like it would against them in that respect. So does the fact that he was cooperative about changing the branding of the logo.
They also have to defend them consistently. If they didn't act on anyone using the name in a positive way, they can't get mad if it's used to criticize them.
I don't know if the church will argue this, but I'd say his accommodation of their requested changes was tacit acknowledgement of the infringement. Where he failed to look both ways was in making the changes without getting a release of future claims in return.