Source: Lawsuit Analysis: Mormon Stories & The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - w/ Blake Ostler Channel: The Missionary Brief Published: May 2, 2026 | Archived: May 24, 2026

Video: Lawsuit Analysis: Mormon Stories & The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - w/ Blake Ostler
Channel: The Missionary Brief
Published: May 2, 2026
Duration: 1:33:45
Views: 4,828
Category: Education
Video ID: 5zbtJv19qLQ

Description

Travis and Blake (both attorneys) give a legal breakdown of what is actually going on with the lawsuit between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Mormon Stories and John Dehlin.

Disclaimer: In the originally published version of this production, Blake Ostler and I misread the Deseret News Headline for the article authored by Jasmin Rappleye and attorney Brittany Ratelle entitled, “Analysis: The Church of Jesus Christ isn’t suing ‘Mormon Stories’ over the word ‘Mormon.’ A look at the lawsuit.” It appears we read that it stated, “is” and not “isn’t” which is reflected in the article. At the time, the screen was minimized causing the error. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

A link to that article is provided here.

Link: https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2026/04/23/mormon-stories-lawsuit/

Tags

lds church mormon lawsuit

Transcript — YouTube panel (human-authored)

0:00 wanted to give you a disclaimer that the thoughts, opinions, and perspectives that will be offered are those of those involved in this broadcast and don’t reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Welcome once again to the missionary brief. For those of you who are familiar with this channel or my other channel, Missionary Discussions, you’ve heard me mention when asked what I do for a living, what what that is and when I typically respond that I’m a pirate.

0:29 Now, what I really am as a practicing attorney. So, on this episode of the Missionary Brief, we’re going to welcome Blake Osler. Now, Blake Osler would say his most important accomplishments are as a husband, a father, and a grandfather. But in today’s episode, we’ll be providing an indepth analysis of the lawsuit that was filed on behalf of the church against John Delin and Mormon stories. For those of you who don’t know or aren’t familiar with Blake, he’s a retired attorney with more than 38 years of practice in many areas, including intellectual property. But for those of you who again don’t know him, he’s also an accomplished theologian, linguist, lecturer, philosopher, and he’s especially the author of the fame four volume exploring Mormon thought series in addition to a myriad of articles which many of many of which can be found on the Interpreter Foundation.

1:21 Now, I hope that you enjoy this in-depth analysis of the legal complexities of a case like that that has been filed by the church against John Dyn. There’s more than meets the eye and these issues are often complicated. So, I hope that you enjoy the opinion of a retired attorney with a significant amount of practice and a current practicing attorney. And hopefully, it’ll help you to understand the issues a little bit more clearly. And with that, I give you Blake Osler. Welcome once again to the missionary brief. And uh Blake Osler, as we stated, is joining us.

1:52 I need to do a disclaimer. We’re going to be talking about IP or intellectual property issues related to the church. I need to disclose that I worked for Curtain and Mcconi, the firm that represents the church and actually did IP work. I was uh involved 26 years ago in obtaining from the patented trademark office in Washington DC uh a number of trademarks and I did significant trademark um copyright and even patent litigation some of a lot of which related to the church during that time.

2:26 I was with Curtain Maki for 10 years. Curtain and Maki is not involved in the lawsuit that we will be involvd in discussing. Uh but I think it’s important that people understand that I I both have that background and that I’m disclosing that I’ I’ve been involved in that way. Yeah. And I likewise will disclose I am I am also not involved in any of this litigation, nor have I been involved with or represented any of the parties.

2:52 So, so with that said, um I I just I kind of we talked before the the meeting about how we would kind of kind of go through this. I have a a PowerPoint with some issues I wanted to go through and um I guess at the outset um maybe just if we want to open up the the Desireette book or the Desireet news article that was published. Yeah. And so effectively many people know that the church has filed a lawsuit against the official brand name of what what goes by Mormon stories. I think it’s open open stories is their actual name and John Delin owner of the entire enterprise. So we can just simply state that.

3:38 Yeah. I’m not sure. Yeah. I’m not sure what what the the structure of the corporation is or or how that works but yeah he is the owner. um with respect to to the lawsuit. Okay, this is not about the word Mormon. Okay, the lawsuit is just it’s not just about the word Mormon. In fact, it’s not really about the word Mormon at all. The the word Mormon is not what’s an issue really at all. Let me explain why.

4:06 The the uh complaint that was filed identify specific trademarks that are issue. One is about the word Mormon and as it is used in a very limited educational setting. Okay. But only as it is in the context of other what are called stylized or design marks. These are marks that have a particular art or artistic designation that go with them. In this case, the church has designated a light ray kind of a of a logo. Um but there are a number of logos used that what’s an issue and it it calls these a family of marks and so what the church is actually alleging is that given these design marks and the way that they function to identify the church taken together the the public identifies these family of marks together as identifying being related to the church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. So this is not about the use of the word Mormon. Okay? It’s not. Moreover, um the word Mormon is a standalone. Couldn’t be the basis of a lawsuit. And they know that. I mean, the complaint is very clear about that. This is Natasha Helper.

5:20 Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints latest move to sue John Delin over the word Mormon due to his very popular podcast called Mormon Stories. Their press release claims they’re being reasonable. But let’s get real. They have a very documented history of being dishonest in their public relations posts. This is about control, not confusion. We’ve seen this before. Back when I was the president of the Mormon Mental Health Association, we faced a cease and desist threat for the exact same thing. The Electronic Frontier Foundation stepped in and made it clear. You cannot own a cultural identity marker. Whether you’re Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, you get to define your relationship to that identity. Whether you’re practicing, devout, or ex, it is relationally unhealthy for an institution to try and brand your lived experience, especially while they’re simultaneously trying to distance themselves from the word. And I think that that’s an interesting an interesting concept is that the the

6:19 disclaimer and I think that we’ll talk about that as we go through the the actual pleadings of the churches disclaiming the word Mormon as they’re alleging. I don’t know that that’s I’m going to explain why that’s both irrelevant. It’s both irrelevant and factually erroneous. But let me respond. I mean, first of all, it’s clear she knows nothing about the law and commenting the way she does about mental health um in general. Um I just think that it’s it’s professionally irresponsible to make the kind of statements that she does. Um be that as it may, this is not about a cultural identity to Mormonism. And that’s the notion that it is is simple nonsense squared.

7:00 Yeah. And it it’s and again it it goes into again A lot of these are ex and and antagonistic content creators that are on social media, you know, making the loudest stink of this whole thing. John Dylan, who is the host of a podcast called Mormon Stories. And if you’re not familiar with Mormon Stories, uh when I first left the church, I listened to hours and hours of this podcast.

7:22 And I think that that’s one of the one of the issues is is that they’re trying to frame this as a this is a threat. John Delin is a threat. And so that’s that’s why the church is attacking him rather than the actual legal issue. Well, let’s point out that the first clip you played actually stated that they face the very same problem. Okay. They have little or no presence and yet the church also asked them not to misuse the name of the church. But the fact is is this has nothing to do with with content. The heir for the complaint, which is what asks for relief, mentions nothing about changing any content of what’s actually stated. All they want is a a prominent disclaimer up front, which is what the law requires. And the bottom line is is that claiming that they’re trying to control content is is a lie on its face for anybody who actually knows about intellectual property law. Here’s why. One cannot control the content through trademark law of what a podcast

8:20 states. plainly simply and that you know the kind of thing that and you know they want to hit this as kind of David against Goliath trying to control thought and speech and that’s just not what’s an issue at all and making those kind of claims is is vast legal ignorance and but of course they’re doing it because they want to create a drama as much as they can both to draw up more views and to create an issue where people will emotionally respond without any clue what’s actually being done. And so this kind of a claim is irresponsible. It’s just not true.

8:56 No claim, no no one is asked to change any content. What they want is a disclaimer upfront that they’re not affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And why is that so hard? It’s the truth. What’s so hard about simply stating the truth? Moreover, it’s a pl a change that can be made to videos now using AI. They could probably make all the changes in 10 minutes using an AI program that would simply put the disclaimer in every video they’ve got. The the burden on them to do so is dimminimous. And so why is it that they’re fighting putting a disclaimer about what the simple truth is? It seems to me that that what they’re actually trying to do is use this like they always do to play the victim. um create their vast victimology about how the church is evil and and misstate, misread, and misattribute. That’s that’s how I see it.

9:47 Well, and I I also I I kind of I often don’t like the David versus Goliath scenario that’s often played out in law, especially with litigation. I mean, if if you’re if you are correct and your representation is competent, the size of the antagonist or the size of the other party is largely irrelevant. And if you have a a meaningful defense or a meaningful argument to be making in a court, then certainly um people try to make it sound like, you know, the more money that somebody’s able to throw at the more lawyers that show up in court that they’re that their arguments are going to be better heard or that the judge is going to take consideration. And I think again that manifests a great deal of ignorance regarding the actual litigation process that attorneys actually engage in. So when I when I present in court, I’m sure you’ve you’ve had the same experience where you can sit there and five lawyers can show up on the other side and if your argument’s

10:45 better, then the judge is going to simply rule in your favor. If you’re actually once I I was in court, I had five attorneys, some of the best attorneys on Wall Street. They came to Utah and, you know, they got up with, you know, their expensive suits. They they made an hour and a half presentation. and I got up, spoke for 5 minutes, and I had the case dismissed. And so, it’s it’s about the law.

11:10 Well, then there’s that whole adage that we all learned in law school of a a good lawyer knows the law, and a great lawyer knows the judge. So, I mean, there are there are things like that that are passed around in the legal community that again, the idea of of the David versus Goliath scenario is predicated on simply the financial value of the other person. I mean, um, the area of law I practice in and in doing plaintiff’s work, we’re we’re often David versus Goliath as far as the amount of of disparity between what my resources and my clients resources are as opposed to the defendants that we go up against.

11:45 And and in those in those cases, I I routinely prevail. I mean, if it didn’t, I wouldn’t be making much of a living for myself. So again, it’s not the it’s not the it’s not the big evil company suing little guy because often times that that flips on its head. I mean, if you’ve ever seen the movie The Rain Maker that with uh with Matt Damon, I mean, here you have this young kind of nononsense lawyer who’s who’s competent who defeats a large insurance company.

12:15 I that’s fiction. But bottom line is is that judges and juries seek for fairness. And I think they even take into account if you see a very flashy attorney, they all know that attorneys are hired guns. Right. Right. But in my experience, they always take all of that into account, they base their decision as best they can on what’s presented to them. Um, however, it is the case that um, an attorney who is more experienced will often get better results than an attorney who’s inexperienced.

12:49 Um, and that’s just the fact about the way, you know, people are persuaded. Um, however, it’s not my experience that the the most persuasive attorneys are the are the best paid attorneys. No. And and that’s true. And I mean, we have situations around the areas in which I practice that um local council as opposed to out of town council is is a huge factor in the judges decisions.

13:13 Judges often make decisions and granted this is in federal court, so there’s not going to be any any voting, but in district court, state district courts, you know, the the judges have to take in consideration their their actual um the people that vote for them. And so I think that it’s I think that those are factors that a lot of people don’t consider and that’s why people removed to federal court is to eliminate some of those kinds of factors, but still they they remain nonetheless. Now, we talked earlier about the the Mormon Mormon church and here’s Alyssa Grenfell um kind of talking about that.

13:44 For me, my first got an emotional reaction to hearing all of this was that the church has tried to abandon using the word Mormon since 2018. uh they’ve removed it from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. They’ve taken down websites. The former prophet, President Nelson, referred to it as a major victory for Satan to use the term. I’ve had people tell me that saying Mormon is a slur for Mormons. It’s a a way that’s like bigoted towards Mormon and Mormons. And so the fact that now they are saying that you can’t use the word Mormon while simultaneously rejecting it for themselves is the most striking irony of this entire thing.

14:26 I I don’t find it ironic at all. And let me explain why it’s irrelevant. Okay. First, the issue in intellectual property law isn’t how members of the church or in former members of the press will see it. It’s how the population in general will relate and be um interested in in a subject matter. Latter-day Saints make up less than 2.5% of the United States population. The general public by vast majority doesn’t include Latter-day Saints will understand the nature of the more of the name Mormon and its relationship to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That’s the first problem they have is that uh they have to show confusion in the general public. And the general public really doesn’t include Mormons who would know anything about this. Okay? It’s going to include people who know very little about the church, but that will associate the name Mormon with the Mormon church. Second, as I’ve already explained, this isn’t about the use of the word Mormon. It’s about stylized

15:30 marks. marks that have distinctive artwork and design incorporated into the trademark that are deceptively used by by John Delin in my opinion. But the bigger problem they have is the president Nielson what and what he’s actually said about use of the word Mormon. What he actually said is I quote, “Well, we have been careful to protect the name Mormon. The media will think we are tossing it out. We aren’t.

15:56 We just want to be accurate.“ Unquote. does in a discourse in August of 2018. So he’s clear that and he has stated the name Mormon is an honorable name and he understands fully that the the public in general will still associate the word Mormon with the church and the use of its marks by the way. So this is a red herring. has nothing to do with the legal issues and focusing on that issue is a big mistake in terms of understanding what this lawsuit is about. Ryan, I agree. I I think that I think that uh um there’s the example um so one of the things that she’s doing is with respect to not only the word Mormon, but again trying to victimize or identify Mormon stories as a victim.

16:48 And I wanted to kind of show this slide real quick to just kind of show the disparity. I mean, Alyssa Grenfell, who of course is not infringing on the church’s copyrights, at least as far as I can see from her branding. She uses her own name. Her podcast has been in effect for a little little under two years. She has double the subscribers and almost three times the views that somebody like a John Dyn has. And so if you look on the on the flip side, the church has has, you know, nearly what three million subscribers on its own website. And so I just don’t see that the and then these these other websites, Scripture Central, Follow Him podcast, and thoughtful faith with Jacob Hansen.

17:32 These are three examples of podcasts that are also engaged in proldds content that I mean if their if their branding is seen as consistent the church may go after them as well may cause them to do disclaimers. I know that all three of them have disclaimers or are actually operating under the the uh the lens of the church in some degree. So with with permission the fact is is for instance in a thoughtful faith every single podcast begins with a verbal statement and a written statement up front that he’s not affiliated with the church and that’s what the church is asking John to limb to do and as I said it’s an easy thing to do the cost is dimminimous the time to do it is dimminimous given AI that can do it very quickly um and so the question I have is why is it so difficult to simply tell the truth up front yeah and so and and looking at this here’s another and this is Matthew Gil.

18:30 I I don’t remember exactly what the name of his church was, but it was I think it was called the Church of the Latter-day Saints or something to that effect. Church of the Latter-day Saints is I think what he called it, but his branding and website were almost identical to the website at the time. And here’s kind of excerpt of his story. You use the wrong shade of blue on your website. You need to remove that shade of blue. Either go darker or get rid of it. And we were like, “Okay.” So, so they actually went after you for the colors as well.

18:59 Oh, yeah. There was a whole raft of colors. There was blue, there was green, there was like a like a like a red, uh, there was like a beige color. There were all these colors and we were like, “Okay, let’s go through the website. Let’s go through our website and see.” And they sent us they’d sent us um uh images of their website and our website. And we were looking at these. There’s no there’s no there’s no real comparison here. Anybody who mistakes our website for the LDS website is either blind or mentally inept. We wrote down uh a list of all the things we were prepared to to compromise on and all the things that we really didn’t care compromising on. Mike, if you don’t want us to use blue, then we won’t use blue. It’s irrelevant really.

19:51 We were prepared to compromise on um the Book of Mormon because in the European Union trademark, they not only trademarked the word Mor, they had trademarked the word the Book of Mormon. And we we knew straight away we had to fight that because unlike in the United States where the Book of Mormon is uh public domain, it’s not like that over here. and they can do a lot of things they can do over here they can’t do in the United States and some of the things of their trademark were just ridiculously silly.

20:27 I mean basically what they tried to do in Europe is to hamstring anybody from from uh using the Book of Mormon who wasn’t LDS. We were going to fight that because it’s fundamental to our faith. And then when you think about the Book of Mormon being trademarked, then you have to look at all the little side things like Joseph Smith and Church history. We wish weren’t prepared to compromise any of those things uh until they she came back with a list of proposals that um that they that they had managed to negotiate. And um we went back and said, “No, we can’t do this, but we’re prepared to do X.” So, we went back and forth for a bit a little bit and finally came to an agreement on um on a few things.

21:17 They they relented on using the word the book of which was great for us. They relented on us actually using the book of Mort because they wanted us to stop using it altogether. So, we won that little battle. Um uh however um you know the the the really big battle I suppose they really won in the end because we we had to change the name of the the organization. Um which it probably worked out best for us.

21:51 Yeah. So I just I wanted to to highlight the fact that in this case it doesn’t look like the church at least in that case because my understanding of this organization and again I don’t have the facts um specifically of that organization is um the they were litigating and the church went to mediation and mediation apparently was successful at least maybe a post mediation resolution was reached but again this wasn’t an antagonistic organization but they still went after them for the infringement of their copyrights, but his assessment of EU law is abysmal.

22:25 Just to be frank, done IP litigation in the EU, and his his assessment and statements about it are not accurate. Well, and I I’ve come to find out later that his uh uh our friend Spencer Krauss sent me some information, which I don’t have available right now, but he she sent me some of the pictures of the websites. They’re almost identical. They they literally copied um the the type cast, the text, the color scheme, the even the layout and font stuff were all identical. That’s so I can see why.

22:54 Personally aware of numerous incidences, more than a dozen where the church has sent these dis letters to um those who are supportive of the church and saying, “Well, look, we don’t want people to think that what you’re doing is actually coming from the church.” Um, and you know, they work it out usually because people are being reasonable and they don’t have any problem telling the truth upfront about who they are and what they’re doing the actual code. And so my understanding is this is the primary statute. Is that correct?

23:23 It’s one of it’s an important one. Yes, there there there are others that have to do with trade dress and others that have to do with specific design works and so forth. So, but this is the infringement of copyright. Doesn’t have to do with trademarks. It has to do with copyright which is a different animal. And so in looking at are the am I so I I looked in the case law again I I don’t do patent law but um I look are the deont factors are they still are they still used? Are they still good law?

23:55 Um they’ve been superseded or or um further refined but they’re still in effect. Okay. Yeah. And so I I just kind of outlined some some of those some of those frameworks and to to the degree that they’re they’re still relevant. And so what it looked like is it looked like from the petition that they went through and outlined and kind of followed this outline at least to the degree but as you’re stating that they’ve done effective.

24:20 Yeah. I wanted to show this. This is an example of a of a a gas station store. It’s actually coming to Utah. You’ll be getting a BIE soon. I don’t remember where Buckies is, but Bies has BE has Yeah, Bies is the beaver. This little red hat, yellow beaver. And these are examples of of companies next to the logo in each of these cases that they have actually engaged in litigation against them for infringement. And so, and they’re trying to I mean, and you can see how how unlike it it it can be.

24:54 And the factors aren’t just does it look the same. That’s correct. I mean, I would look at these clearly duckies is trading on bies in in the lower lefthand corner, but um and the fact that they’re using a beaver in the Freo Beaver case. Um maybe um the question, however, is you’ve heard of BIES. Does it cause confusion in the mind of the general public as to what the origin source or sponsorship of the mark is?

25:28 And usually to do that, people go out and take polls. They bring in experts. They’ll bring in a few actual people who are who are in fact um you know confused and fooled by the use of the trademark in order to prove that. And I don’t know what any of that would show in this case. I’m not familiar with this trademark or how it works or or even what the relevant commercial niche is for use of this mark, but it’s probably gas stations. I’m guessing they have this it’s basically they call it the Walmart of gas stations. It’s these massive gas stations. They’re known for having uh they have a 100 pumps in front.

26:06 Massive amount large trucking um access for large trucking companies. They’re known for having the best barbecue and the cleanest restrooms. huge amounts of restrooms that are continuously look. The stores are actually quite impressive. You you’ll be a lot you’ll when you when you get one there in Utah, you’ll have to you have to take a a jaunt to see it. It’s it’s quite the spectacle.

26:26 I’ll check it out as soon as I drive a diesel truck in. How’s that? Well, they’re they’re normal gas stations. They they cater to anybody. And then another example I found is this giant company, which again, this is this is an older this is an older case. is a 40-year-old case. But again, just just this use of the word giant. Um, and they event they originally argued you can’t you can’t trademark or copyright giant.

26:55 And so giant is something that has to do with size, but because of its usage and application, they were able to prevail in this case. So, and they have a styized Yeah, they have a stylized mark if you see to the left of Giant, right? which means it’s not just a generic term or or an English meaning of a word that’s an issue. People need to understand that the stylized marks have a different status in general names or uses like that. So the word Mormon of itself um is something that that is difficult to protect. In fact, the PTO rejected use of the general name Mormon as as a trademark. But once it is put into a family of stylized marks, the law is very different. And what and you have to show both that the the particular structure of that trademark is suggestive of of causing the confusion and you have to show that um you don’t by the way you don’t have to show intent. You don’t have to show these people were intentionally trading on

27:56 this mark. That’s only a small consideration. It’s relevant but it’s a small consideration in terms of what that confusion is. But if it looks like somebody’s actually trying to benefit from the commercial. So for instance, if somebody has done a great deal of advertising, it looks like somebody’s coming and trading trade on the investment that’s been made in developing a name, the courts don’t hesitate to shut that kind of thing down because it would liquidate the value of advertising and developing one’s mark.

28:27 Well, yeah. And and so for example in the BIES cases like you said it’s the idea that this so if you have something that’s called something like BISE a name that’s maybe like Mickey’s or something and trademark is is animal. So BIES seems to be arguing that because it’s a similar type of enterprise and how much does that that bear into the factor they have to be they have to be in a sense in the same realm for people to be confused about it. So if I’m reading about Mormon stories as as simply a story about how an astronaut went to Mars as compared to somebody who is saying I’m going to give you information about this religion which is what John Delin does. There are two different universes. And so the fact that that they’re actually going after the same people in the in the same kind of interest means that that infringement is much much more likely because people are much more likely to be confused by the

29:24 by those uses. Okay. Um so I’m not confused that something is from Disney if I see it as a as advertising woodlocks to bird. Okay. But if I see it on a doll, I’m much more likely to be confused by it. Right? Which is, I think, one of the one of the factors with respect to what Dyn’s doing with Mormon stories is it’s communication. It’s it’s discussing the same material, the same topics, the same subject matter.

29:51 It’s discussing religious ideas and the validity of religious ideas. So, they’re directly the the same area of of interest, concern, and community structure of of um discourse. So, here’s again, this is from the petition. This bottom line anyway is from the actual petition on the case. And so they’re they’re showing that this and this blue this blue M Mormon stories logo, the one that’s highlighted in red, has been used up as uh recently is I think less than four or five years ago.

30:23 It was used um at the church actually alleges that it was essentially modified and adopted in 2022 and is often used by Dyn or is at least up to this point often been used by Dyn in black and white and when you lose use a logo in black and white it automatically covers all different colors that you can use. Okay. So the way he has stylized it and put it in black and white, he’s actually using he’s saying all spectrums of color are what I’m I pointing to. And so um simply he’s simply copying the logo as a practical matter. Yeah. And here’s here’s again uh this is how he appears on on the Facebook application where you know honestly if I was going through this and I didn’t know what Mormon stories really was. I mean certainly I would I would stop on this and say what is this? I mean you’ve got nice little happy people. You’ve got young people with missionary tags graduating from BYU. I mean he he’s

31:25 obviously you’ve got the Christristus in the background and what looks like papyrus. I mean, this looks like Joseph Smith, the temple. Um, this looks like something that is sponsored, affiliated, and perhaps even supported by the church or put out by the church. So, again, andor the jury will have no problem concluding that he’s trading on the church’s marks in my Yeah. And all all it takes is it takes a um somebody in the jury that’s unfamiliar with both and looking at them and saying, “Well, heck, that’s that looks like the same thing to me. I don’t know how you couldn’t. And then of course his branding goes so far as I guess shortly after he was he was um given the cease and desist letter. And this is this to me is where I think that it gets a little bit nefarious. This is the newer logo, this dark tan one, the slight tan one with the sun rays. So this is one of those where this is that you mentioned the sun rays in the petition. It specifically identifies this ray pattern. Correct.

32:22 Right. Right. The church has in its complaint at least has made a focus on use of the light rays as a part of the stylized mark. Right? And so again, these are these are specific and and what I see now what I don’t like about this is I think that again if these are presented to the factfinder in the case and of course just for the audience there’s there’s a may maybe maybe you ought to do that like what’s the difference between the the role of the judge and the role of the jury in a in a actual court case. So in this case, the court will will interpret the statute, determine the meaning of the statute and instruct the jury on what the meaning of the statute is and how it’s applied. A jury will decide the issue of actual confusion.

33:10 And so what we’re now it’s not unusual for courts to simply make these decisions as matter of law. Um I a number of cases where courts did that. Was that in dispositive motions? And I guess there’s a dis, you know, we we often engage as lawyers in disposalation practice. I would expect in this case it may well go to a jury. And you have to understand that because it’s in federal district court, if they sued in third district court, it would largely be a people in Salt Lake County and it would probably have a number of people fairly hostile to the church on the jury. This is a statewide jury and so it’s much more likely to have um a jury that is more reflective of the state of Utah as a whole on the jury and I would expect that they would easily find confusion and there also one thing the jury won’t do that it commonly does the church is only seeking injunctive relief and injunctive relief is the province of the court that is the judge not the jury

34:10 and and with that with that so Again, the the church doing this for some kind of monetary reason, I think, is defeated by that argument. Wouldn’t would you agree with that? It has no monetary aspect to it whatsoever. They’re not seeking damages. In fact, one of the reasons for you have most people don’t understand this. You have the LAN act which would cover these marks whether they were filed and approved by the patented trademark office or not. One of the benefits that you get from registering is attorney’s fees when you sue and prevail. But the church in its complaint hasn’t even requested attorney’s fees.

34:50 It’s one of the things that drives me crazy in a number of cases where they could have recovered literally millions of dollars in attorney’s fees. They don’t seek them. They may see themselves as being merciful. I want them to put an exclamation point on it and say, “Look, you acted in bad faith. Pay our fees.” But they don’t do that. And is is that is that common from your your dealings with Curtain McConi or other other litigation with the church that they don’t seek attorney fees?

35:17 Um, yes. It’s common for the church not to seek attorney’s fees. I never do a case without seeking attorneys fees. So, if they ask me not to seek attorneys fees, I would simply say I don’t do it that way. That’s not that’s not my that’s not my cup of tea. No. And I don’t blame you. It’s It’s hard to do these cases. Now, I should point out I’m retired and I don’t practice and don’t want to practice law anymore. I’ve been retired since 2021 and no longer hold an active license where I can litigate. I did that on purpose to wing my clients off of me. Okay.

35:53 Yeah. Because you know, the first the first rule of law school is don’t tell anybody you’re a lawyer. Exactly. So, uh I don’t know if you’ve heard me, I I refer to myself as a pirate. I got that from an old an old uh Have you you’re familiar with the Pirates of Penzance Rogersstein musical? Have you ever seen the old the old TV show or the old movie that they did of it back in the I have so in that they changed one of the lines to where the the pirate king he says perhaps we’ll sell across the seas where pirates all have law degrees. That’s where I got that idea. So So People ask people ask me what I do for a living. I tell them I’m a pirate.

36:38 And you know what’s interesting too, Blake, is the number of times I’ll say I’m a pirate. And they go, “Oh, okay. Well, I’m an engineer.” They don’t even ask. Wow. Well, I always when they when they ask me what I do and I say I’m an attorney, I say, “Do you know the difference between an attorney or a lawyer and a catfish?” And they’ll look at me and I’ll say, “Well, one is a bottom dwelling scum sucker and the other’s a fish.

37:06 you know, and that’s the good thing about being an attorney is we have a very good sense of humor about it. So, you know, do Yeah. And so, here’s here’s some examples of that again the church did of of people engaging in in confusion. And again, these are these are found in the pleadings. And, you know, I’m going to go ahead and just um we’ll go through some of the pleadings. I wanted to go through these counts and just kind of have you identify and kind of explain um to the best of what you what you can what’s going on in each of these. So count one is uh 15 USC 1114.

37:41 Well, and for the audience at home, USC stands for U United States Code. So all all laws in the United States um have some kind of USC association with them. I had somebody tell me that that stands for um something to do with states and commerce or something and I’m like no it doesn’t stand for states and commerce coins. Yeah they’re thinking of the UC rather than the USC. So but uh but uh uh count one is the plaintiffs repeat the allegations above.

38:17 Of course, um the acts complainer are of hearing constitute infringement acting. Now they say willful, intentional or in bad faith. And what what is required legally to support that that they were acting um willful and deliberate in bad faith that they intentionally wanted to trade on um the prior advertising and development of the mark in order to benefit their own business or product.

38:47 Um and so what they’re doing is trading on intentionally using the um um economic benefit that has already been spent by the owner of this market. This is about registered trademarks. This is this means that family of trade of stylized trademarks that they identify in I believe in paragraph um 28 of the complaint. And the infringement you don’t have to prove that somebody did a willfully intentionally or a bad faith in order to prove infringement.

39:17 But if it’s shown that they willfully did that and that’s what they were trying to do, it’s it’s one of the components that a jury can consider in determining whether or not there’s been infringement. And when a jury instruction is given, it doesn’t necessarily include this kind of language. Um but they can be instructed that if it’s done willfully or intentionally, that is another element showing that infringement has incurred.

39:40 Yeah. So again, yeah, it’s just a detail that the that the jury considers in actually granting the injective relief or whatever relief is being requested. Yeah. It’s certainly not determinative one way or the other. Yeah. So it’s not it’s not like in a negligence case where you have to have, you know, your elements of negligence in order to to actually p prevail in the case. And if you can defeat So this is not an intentional tort. This Yeah, it’s not. Yeah. And so the intent is not really relevant, but they are pleading it as far as an evidentary burden. And I want to show this. This is a this is an interesting uh clip. And I think you’ve seen this church um uh believed it all. Uh active, faithful, all the things. Um and I do want to just add one quick anecdote. Um as a part of all that, I just was looking for uh content to consume. Um, so I remember uh pretty pretty quickly after my mission um because I I am a big fan of podcasts.

40:44 So I went to the podcast app, Apple podcast, typed in Mormon, saw Mormon stories and I was like perfect stories about Mormons. Um and the first one I came across that was not why I named it. No. And I know and and I Okay, maybe it was a little bit Okay, maybe it was a little bit worse. And um No. And so I think if I was the attorney that would be one of the certainly one of the exhibits I would shut the exhibit number one because it demonstrates two things. This guy was actually confused by the by the use of the marks. So this is actual confusion demonstrated by the evidence.

41:20 And then you’ve got do John Delin admitting oh yeah well yeah that was one of the reasons that we adopted the marks the way that we did. Yeah, admission by a defendant’s always submissible, right? And so, um, it’s also relevant to prove bad faith and intention, and he just admitted it. So, there you go. Yeah, I think that that uh well and I I like I like the idea and again the the fact that I I I’ve heard that story a lot from people I’ve interacted with, you know, and in trying to not only explain what the church’s church believes to people, but also teach them about the church. And I I found that oftentimes those who’ve left or antagonistic um will say, “Yeah, I I stumbled across this. I stumbled across that.” I I mean I even think that uh there I think there was an action against the CES letter that Jeremy Reynolds letter because there he’s using CES. I I haven’t heard whether or not that’s preceded or what what the outcome or if that’s even I don’t know about that one. Um I don’t either.

42:22 But isn’t that the Consumer Electronics Show? No, the Consumer There is a CES by the way in Vegas. The Consumer Electronic Show. It’s only good. Well, it does sound awesome. So, violation to um allegations that says defendants’s complaint of herein constitute trademark infringement of false false designations of origin and false or misleading descriptions or representations of fact in violation.

42:51 What are we looking for in order to prove this account? Well, this is the LAN Act. I don’t have to have even a valid registered trademark in order to bring a claim under the LAN Act. The issue here is simply one of secondary meaning where my name and the association with me is taken on a meaning in the relevant market that gets confused with with somebody else trying to trade on it. If somebody designates their goods, for instance, it’s coming from me when I’m not doing that. That’s a false designation of origin. Um, if they’re using misleading descriptions so that they it appears that it’s coming from this source when in fact it’s not. often this is done to trade again on the benefit that has been developed through advertising or market presence for a long period of time. But I don’t have to prove in this one and I don’t get attorneys fees um with respect to bringing in action under the LAM act uh because I don’t have a registered trademark if it’s merely under the LAM act.

43:51 And so here are some examples that were found in the petition of images that are being used. And again, not only are these copyrighted images of the church, but what do you do if you have doubts? Even the way that they present these things, right? This looks like I’m going to be listening to President Nelson talk on what to do if I have doubts. It it Yeah. General conference review.

44:15 Yeah. I think these these definitely suggest a false origin. I think this is deceptive. I think it’s intentionally deceptive. And I think it’s beyond being bad faith. I think it’s immoral. I think it’s ethically wrong. There’s a big difference between what’s ethically wrong and what the law covers. Keep in mind, but right this this just kind of frosts me because I think it’s so intentionally deceptive, right? The the framing of it. So I I I’ve long been bothered. Now earlier on, and again early on, Mormon stories was kind of more following along with a a a spectrum of different types of people associated with Latter-day Saints and with the church. But now they they’ve almost entirely gone in an attack antagonistic, misrepresenting our doctrine. Early on, Dyn was was unsure whether he wanted to be or not be affiliated with the church. Okay. And he himself has morphed with his with his podcast. Um I knew John Delin when he

45:23 was over Sunstone. And um he’s a different animal now than he was then. So um we have to understand that you know I go back 20 years but what he was 20 years ago is certainly what not why he is now. But let me state that what happened 20 years ago I don’t think is all that relevant either. It will be an issue in the case that Mormon stories has been in long use and that the church has not taken action. There are several defenses based upon that. One is abandonment but the church hasn’t abandoned its its trademarks. That’s clear. Um, I see this kind of claim being made because the Mormon distance itself, the the church distance itself from the word Mormon, but that’s not abandonment. That’s just we want to be accurate about who we are and the actual name.

46:13 Well, and specifically specifically Mormon with relation to and earlier on in the slide, it’s the quote from President Hinckley which or President Nelson, I’m sorry, that’s often misrepresented. he is talking about naming the organization of the church the Mormon church or calling it the the Mormon entity or the Mormon church. um really very little and it because we have the other talks from President Inkley and from President Monson that are saying don’t be offended that you are called Morbids and from my perspective and again not not practicing in this area um it’s not that the church is saying the the word is evil or bad and we should not be using or should not be used but it should not be used by members in referring to the name of the church and I think that’s very specific specific on that it’s a instructions to journalists and instruction to members of the church and as I said we make up less than than 3%

47:10 of the relevant population and so when when the issue is put what does the general public do now the jury may well be made up of 40 to 60% of LDS members um probably at least 25% of whom will be disaffected okay and so um they will be reflective of of hopefully what the actual community sees in that in the state of Utah. But it’s not really about the state of Utah either. It’s about the United States. And in that context, this kind of instruction to members of the church is totally irrelevant. In addition to the fact that it’s not the name Mormon that’s an issue, as I’ve already explained, it’s stylized mark.

47:49 So it has to do with the entire presentation artistically in terms of the design and the way people associate those marks. And in order to do that, people actually have to recognize those marks. They have to say, “Oh, yeah. I know it.” When I see that, I think about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that’s what I thought it was. And you know, the church has given a lot of instances just in the complaint. I’ll bet they come up with 400 more that they can present to the court very easily where people were actually in fact confused.

48:22 Actual confusion, of course, is the actual best evidence that it is confusing. And it doesn’t it doesn’t have to be 50%, it doesn’t have to be 30%. If it has a a propensity to confuse, that’s sufficient to demonstrate the confusion. Okay? Especially for people unfamiliar. So if you have to be truly intimately and and correct me if I’m wrong, if you have to be truly intimately familiar with the actions or the products of both organizations in order to distinguish their separation from one another or that they are different then then that that’s confusion. It is confusion.

49:00 And so the bar here is not nearly as high as they say. But I wanted to talk more about the delay in bringing this lawsuit in order. So, it’s it’s an equitable defense known as latches. And and legally, I want to say this defense is about as vague as as any doctrine. We all love latches, right? Yeah. That’s the latches. That’s the default. Well, but latches. Yeah. So there isn’t a there’s not really uh a statute of limitations in this particular area other than to say if you bring it within 3 years um you know it’s conclusive that it’s not too late. But with latches and and most people regard this as you know we have no idea how the court’s going to go because they’re all over the place on this issue. But one thing that is clear under latches is that they have to prove that the delay caused them actual damages, you know, as a basis for claiming latches in an and it’s an equitable defense, not a statutory defense. And so they’re Mormon Stories is going to have

50:02 to actually prove that it was damaged by the delay and have no idea. I may have thought about this. I think how are they possibly going to prove that they were damaged by the delay? In fact, they benefited from the delay. Yeah. And so that so just briefly for the audience what is latches? So latches is an equal document that says if you sit on your rights to wait just just real quick that no lawyer likes. It’s exactly no lawyer likes. If I have to argue latches I’m always like I don’t know.

50:34 It’s because I know the judge is going to look at me and go what do you expect me to do any? So, um, so latches is is this equitable sense that it’s unfair for you to wait this long to bring this lawsuit. And as I’ve already explained, this lawsuit isn’t about the word Mormon. And it’s not merely about the fact that they’re in the market. It’s about the kind of confusion. And in 2022, Dyni changed his marks that to make them look a lot more like the church’s actual marks using lightways and so forth. So may not even be available here. But even if it is, one has to prove both that the delay is unreasonable, but two that it causes actual damage to the person not being sued by the delay.

51:20 And I’m not that creative. I just can’t come up with a way that they’re going to prove that. Yeah. And count three is is kind what you’re talking about. Again, going back to the use of of the Christa symbol, the light rays and of course the uh the specific um again I don’t know when he first adopted the circle um that is there but again he’s and I like the I like the word that they the way that they phrase this. They say defendants use of defendants marks the Christa symbol, the light rays, design marks or other marks incorporating plaintist marks and other indicy constitutes passing off palming off imitating and causing or likely causing confusion and deception. So again, with these pleadings, I think a lot of people would see a lot of repetitious language throughout the pleadings, but each each one of these counts is distinct and separate and arguing for a different principle.

52:15 They’re just they’re restating the legal in a complaint. You have to state the the very basics of a claim in order to survive a motion to dismiss. It’s like bringing in fame for negligent without claiming that the the the defendant was actually negligent, right? You know, there’s Yeah. You don’t you don’t claim a a duty or the element of duty in your petition that Right. then you’re you’re kind of going to get shot from the get-go.

52:39 And again, here’s looking at at their these are the examples of designs that they’ve used as their prominent designing. And so again, I think that the two tan circles are more recent than the blue. And of course, I think the orange circle is still problematic. Now, it doesn’t have to be a specific color, especially because they’ve also adopted it in black and white, as I said, which traits on all colors. Um, but and and keep in mind something else that people need to notice. They’re talking about a family of marks that all together create a recognition and that Dyn is using that family of marks, not just one or two. He’s using all of them together. And so he’s creating this impression by using that family of marks. And that in particular is a much stronger case than simply saying, well, I’ve got a trademark and they’re trading on this one mark. Okay? Because that’s not what the church is alleging. As I read the complaint, they’re saying he’s using all these marks together and there

53:37 are marks. And when you use all these marks together, it becomes really uncontestable what you’re trying to do. So, um I think that’s where they’re going with that kind of an allegation. And in my view, Dyn’s going to have a really hard time responding to that. No. And I I agree. Here’s the actual pleadings. Um so, going down. Yeah. So again, I I’ve highlighted several again kind of repeating some of the other other uh counts and we can go through the other count here. There four four counts in this complaint. Um did you ought to include a copy of the petition with this broadcast this podcast so that people can actually see for themselves what’s being alleged and what isn’t.

54:19 I will. Yeah, I was actually going to go through it. Yeah. So So here we have um again this is very very common outline. This is called the style of the case with respect to the attorneys. Federal court has very stringent rules as to how pleadings have to be um what font they can use. Every every court has their own specific not only general rules but local rules as to what you have to do.

54:46 And if you if you muff it up, you might not get your your pleadings entered. And just by looking at it, I can tell you that this has been this is Utah District Federal District Court pleading. I mean, all I have to see is the style to know that this is what they’re trying to conform with are the Utah specific rules in the District of Utah. Yeah. And so it’s it’s uh complaint for trademark infringement, which is a a federal question because under federal law question the court has jurisdiction.

55:17 Yeah. There’s a federal question for issue. Yeah. or that subject matter, what we call subject matter. Subject matter jurisdiction, right? They have original subject. Yeah. So, again, we’ve kind of gone through these. The copyright materials cause or will cause confusion. We introduced the petition. The petition is quite long. I’ll I’ll link a a description to it. Uh the petition’s, you know, 30 pages, which is not uncommon. I mean, petitions in other causes of action for negligence and things can be much shorter, but petitions for um more complicated or technical issues are going to be a little bit longer. Um, you know, 30 pages is not an unreasonable petition.

55:56 I’ve seen petitions that are, in my experience, in intellectual property attorneys in particular are quite loose. Yep. I’m sure I’m sure a page or two could cut off, but yeah, we’re we’ve got a pretty good pretty good solid um the church again right here in in paragraph three, the church does not seek in any way to influence the content of the defendants’s podcast. The defendant should not be allowed to use the church’s trademarks or other church intellectual property. Again, I I think that J Delen arrogantly um believes and I I had a I have a video clip I can play, but he arrogantly believes that this is persecution because of the bleeding of the church and lots of members are leaving and so as a consequence, the church is trying to stop the bleeding by stopping him. But as I demonstrated with with podcasts like Alyssa Grenfell, hers is much more significant of a presence online in a much shorter period of time. I mean, in two years, she has 600,000

56:54 subscribers and and hundreds of thousands of views per video, whereas John Delin’s influence seems to be receding. And yet, the church is still saying, “We have to protect our intellectual property. We can’t let you use.” Amazing point of the unintended consequences of this is that John Lynn will get a great deal of unintended um Oh, yeah. He’s gonna he’s gonna benefit from the Yeah. press on it.

57:19 Yeah. which um my view is the the kind of defense he’s mounting is, you know, I’m a victim, which is quite characteristic for John Lone, by the way. But the bottom line is that um with this kind of a of a complaint, he’s actually out pleading for money to to be able to defend the lawsuit. He makes over $200,000 a year already from his podcast. A lot of evangelicals and other Mormon haters donate money to him just to keep him alive, right? Right.

57:49 So, you know, um, but I want to emphasize again, this type of lawsuit cannot affect content of what is stated in a podcast. It in effect, a truthful statement about what the actual truth is, about what the origin and and relationship of this podcast to the church is. And I don’t know why John Deolin has such an aversion to the truth about standing up front what his relationship to the church is.

58:18 I No. And I and again, yeah, I think that the the issue here is is that he does benefit directly from the brand confusion. And I think that people who are trying to make this about Mormon, again, those two issues. They’re making it about the word Mormon and they’re persecuting me. that sidelines the issue of the fact that it is known that people are actually going to his materials because of this brand confusion.

58:49 I’ve even seen people say it’s about free speech and my response is you have no clue about intellectual property law that’s what you think this is about. First of all, you can’t affect the content of a podcast through this kind of an action. Second and and and very quickly the content of the broadcast is in fact protected by the first amendment. You can’t touch it. This is not about that. And the claims that it is about free speech and merely I’m a victim and and creating a victimology.

59:20 It’s the same kind of thing. You know, it’s a Nauvoo press all over again. I’ve seen that. This is, you know, they’re out destroying they’re out burning presses again, right? Which of course is is the ultimate. I’m I’m such a victim. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so, which is the opposite of mental health, by the way. Yeah. And so there are there are designations of titles the church has used and again abandonment I I just don’t think works because and and second guess me if I’m wrong, but the church has not ceased entirely to use the term Mormon. It’s just it just doesn’t brand its name.

59:59 Yeah. It just stopped calling the church which the church has never gone by the morton church. So that’s the problem is the church can’t abandon a title of itself that it has never used but is continually owned is continually owned valid registered trademarks with the with using and they’ve continued to use those marks throughout that entire period of time. And as I’ve already said, this this is really a a red herring about, in other words, it’s intended to misdirect and mislead people about what’s really an issue, right?

1:00:32 And the church is clearly I mean, the the the argument that the church abandoned its trademarks is going to get about 5 seconds in front of the judge and the judge is going to go that this is not about that. Move on. Right. And I I So here’s the light rays. This is on on page seven of the complaint. Right. Um and again Rocky stated black and white light rays light rays in various various forms and design. I think the that the court will pause and give some consideration to the long delay in bringing the case and I think the issue as to whether they were actually injured by the delay may well be something that the jury will be determining. Okay. So the latches the latches argument is one that actually has at least uh some merit. not great merit, but it has some merit. And you know, I think it’s a legitimate question. Well, why didn’t the church act earlier to take action? And the answer is that you don’t have to take on everybody using your mark at the same

1:01:29 time. And the church can show a consistent pattern of sending out letters and bringing actions u all around the world by the way to protect these not only these marks but the general association with the church both the faithful and unfaithful users of the marks. And so I think the church is going to be able to overcome this kind of an issue as to the you know the doubt well I think you’re just going after him because of his content. Um the the bottom line is is that though I I think that the delay is something that a judge will at least pause over and say, “Well, that may have some merit. Let’s let’s let it it get to a jury.” Yeah. With respect to the our our defenses, our responses to the latch’s argument, would would they have legitimacy in stating we were unaware of the extent to which they were infringing or we were unaware of this specific example. While we were engaged, like you stated, we are actually going after people for using these similar materials. We just hadn’t gotten to this

1:02:34 one yet. Would that we would have to take on everyone at once. I but they’ve already put that answer in their complaint and that is that Delin intentionally changed his marks in 2022. He added blue, added light rays, he intentionally made it look more like the church’s marks. Um and so they’re going to be saying, you know, we haven’t delayed that long and this kind of an allegation. They have they have April 22, 2020 claims that they’re doing this that we like here’s our here’s our material as of that date and we started using the light rays in 2020 and then 2022 he starts using it and changing it. So this is this is their branding and I guess that would again we don’t see a clear a clear violation of our of our trademark until you start doing this in 2020 or 2022 because it’s not about people mistake this and say oh it’s about the name Mormon when it isn’t and so well he’s been using the name Mormon since 2005 and the response is that’s legally irrelevant. It has nothing to do with

1:03:40 the lawsuit. you know, and again that’s the that’s the issues. And so the has the church abandoned these these trademarks? I I I just don’t think that’s a good argument. I don’t think that the delay the latches argument I don’t think is I don’t think again like you said it’ll be considered but it’ll be considered and the church like you said the judges and and that’s just the nature of federal judges. Jud federal judges I’ve noticed are relatively objective. They’re pretty straightforward. I rarely unless unless it’s a magistrate judge.

1:04:12 Who’s the judge that was assigned to this? By the way, I don’t even know. I I don’t know. It’ll be on the first page. It’ll be on the first page. It’ll show who it’s assigned to unless this because this is filed. It will say who it’s assigned to. Um it’s Look, it doesn’t it doesn’t say on the I don’t have You’re right. We’ll be able to find out by looking at at who it’s assigned to.

1:04:34 Um because there are two judges on the Utah Federal District Court are fairly hostile to the church. Um one who is relatively neutral and true and two that I would say would be um you know they they wouldn’t be so so knee-jerk reaction against the church but at least two of them on the federal district court in Utah are fairly hostile to the church in my experience. See, yeah, we have we have issues with bias down here over certain issues.

1:05:07 Whenever I’m dragging to federal court, I’m usually Yeah, and I can say this because I’m no longer a practicing attorney. Um, but again, judges, in my experience, do their very best to be objective and fair. They don’t always succeed because no human ever does, but they do their best. And so I don’t want to say, oh, it’s a foregone conclusion that if you get this judge, you lose, but it’s more likely if you get this judge. Okay. And and so, um, but this is a this is an action, you know, they’re clearly not going to get it dismissed on any kind of a a factual presentation saying that the church abandoned its marks. That’s just not going to happen.

1:05:49 Yeah. And again, because it’s not Mormon stories, this is on page 17 as you were stating that um here in in December of 22, Mormon stories began using this logo. And so it’s these two, these tan logos is kind of what started. Then they included this one. They currently have used this orange one. And again, they adopted the orange one in response to the mediation according to John Smith.

1:06:12 But the the orange is actually still I’ve seen this on church publications. I have seen I’ve seen yellow. I’ve seen orange. I’ve seen green. I’ve seen another this exact shade. This burnt orange. This exact shade of burnt orange. Exactly. Like he just picked another color that the he’s pretending if I if I pick another color used by the church, I’m okay. That in fact, the things that John Delin has published since this was filed, either his attorney doesn’t know, you know, his attorneys don’t know what they’re doing or John Delin isn’t following their advice. Okay. Well, and I I wanted to go I wanted to go into that just real quick. I’m gonna pull this one up. Can you see this document now? This is this is John Delen’s statement.

1:06:57 Um I don’t This is him actually writing this, I think. And I don’t know if it’s advisable. Would you let your clients issue a statement? No, I wouldn’t either. I tell my clients not to talk to anybody or put anything especially with what they have here. I mean, at least they don’t disclose what their attorneys advised them to do. But yeah, it what they’re doing here again, they mis they misunderstand the nature of the lawsuit because they’re they’re talking about how they’ve used the name Mormon for so long and then um they talk about how the church has has somehow abandoned the mark or you know that they weren’t that they they distanced themselves from the mark. That’s not going to go anywhere. And so um but the the in the one statement about market confusion just isn’t true. Um so if one scrolls through through our thumbnails and titles, it is impossible to believe that we are owner sponsored by the LDS church except we can come up with hundreds of instances where people actually were on his own Facebook site.

1:08:15 Right. I know. Yeah. And so one of the things that’s really interesting and again I only highlight this to demonstrate the dishonesty that I see I mean just from my perspective of course but um he says this in fact over the past several years I have been constantly reminded by LDS church members that any usage of the word Mormon is a victory for Satan. And again, that is not the specific quote from the talk that that President Nelson made was when it comes to nicknames of the church, such as the LDS church, the Mormon church, or the church of Jesus Christ or the church of the Latter-day Saints, the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s church is a major victory for Satan. And again, not even what he’s saying is it’s when people ask members how they designate themselves. He wants he wants to church.

1:09:11 Yeah. You members call the church by its proper name. That is the But they also have a guide for journalists, right? This is how journalists should refer to us. This is we want to be respected. But the general public are not journalists and the general public are not members of the church. the general public are people who who don’t know a lot about this and and vastly in the United States, not people who would give a crap what President Nelson has advised.

1:09:37 Yeah. But he says I mean he says church members that any use of the word any usage of the word Mormon that’s that’s just again it just goes to show just as a general not even associated with the legal issue but just in the way that John Delin thinks any usage of the word Mormon. So, if we call it the Book of Mormon, that’s a victory for Satan. If we call if we call Moroni’s father Mormon, that’s a victory for Satan. I mean, it’s just any usage of the word.

1:10:05 It’s just he he’s so he’s so lacking in specificity and and the overuse of generalities whenever it suits him. It’s just one of the things that always has bothered me about him. And this is typical of of of victimology press releases, right? because all he really wants here is more is more oh poor you um and oh me the poor victim please donate money to me and so um what’s really happening here though is for a general public and so he’s not going to get real particular he doesn’t care about being hyper accurate in any sense he just wants to give the general impression I’m I’m being picked on and these people are acting in a way that’s contrary to what President Nelson did which a close look is going to show just isn’t accurate it. But the general notion among members of the church is well why do we but and again this is not about the use of the word Mormon. Okay.

1:11:02 This is about stylized trademarks and the family of trademarks as the paintings allege and their use in totality by by John. And so this is a red herring. It’s it’s like this. It’s a trick the attorneys use. Is it? So, we have to have proper grammar, right? So, I want to know is it 2 plus 2 is five or is it 2 plus 2 are five. When they say, well, I think it’s is five. I say no. 2 plus 2 equals 4. You just paid attention to the wrong thing.

1:11:37 Right. Exactly. It that’s a very good example actually as as I would expect from you, Blake. But here’s his here’s his responses that we have actually provided the but see again he buries it he buries his disclaimer in in one little square somewhere but again Mormon stories open stories found all rights reserved Mormon stories not affiliated with or endorsed by the church Jesus Christ saints again small print he can only find a few examples where he’s actually providing any kind of disclaimer and they’re in print media that is not associated.

1:12:19 Yeah, they’re in the print media, not in the podcast. What the church wants is something that is legally entitled to. I want a statement in writing or verbally stated upfront in your podcast. This is not affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. It’s that simple. And you could add it in five seconds using AI to even the past podcast. And so what they’re asking is dimminimus. Moreover, it has this virtue. It’s the simple truth. Why can’t he simply state the simple truth?

1:12:48 And this is this is one of the things again in just going into it and I think that people watching this need to understand and pay attention. He says things like it was somewhat disturbing and this is with my and I I’m friends with Jasmine. First of all, he misspells her name. But it was somewhat disturbing to see that Jasmine Rapley and others had already released statements and videos about the lawsuit, literally before I even knew I was being sued. I I just am wondering why he did not know he was being sued after attending a mediation that busted.

1:13:27 First of all, it’s certainly not the whole truth. Second, Jasmine Rapley, I think, is actually given a a response to that, showing that what he’s saying just isn’t true. Now, it may well be that he didn’t he thought, as I understand what John is saying, he said, “I thought I resolved these issues.” That’s not true. If you resolve an issue, you get what’s known as a settlement agreement. Your s your attorney is going to make sure it’s in black and white on paper and that it’s signed by both parties. Right? So the notion that I and he says this, I thought we had resolved the issues. Any person who has an IQ above 50, that that is above a a moving snail that’s already been crushed, would know that’s not the case.

1:14:08 Well, he contradicts himself, too, because he’s made statements that state that things didn’t resolve at mediation. Actually, said that. I just don’t I No, he knows that’s not true. It can’t be true because you get a written statement that’s signed and it’s enforceable in a court of law if that’s what happens. And if that’s what he thinks, now look, he’s not an attorney. Let’s give him this. Maybe he doesn’t understand that that in order for me to actually resolve this, I need a statement signed by the church saying that this is adequate. Maybe he’s that naive, but the guy has a PhD. I have a hard time believing that, even if it is merely in psychology.

1:14:49 Yeah. Oh, we made a bigology. Come on, Blake. Theology. I’m ashamed of myself. Okay. So, I don’t know. I uh I didn’t pursue psychology. So, you have a degree. That’s a psychology degree. I I know how useless it is. Yeah. My myself as well, which is why which is why I’m a pirate. Exactly. So that’s why I’m a I’m a scum sucking bottom dollarer. So I’m a gum sucking Yeah. It’s the whole uh what’s what do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

1:15:30 A good start. Yeah. So yeah, I just I just don’t think that How many lawyers does it take to change a label? I don’t know. No no group or number of lawyers has ever accurately or successfully done it. There’s a there’s a so just um just kind of going back to the complaint. I mean again we have the exhibits are just the the uh that were provided in the complaint. I’ll make these available in the exhibits are important because they contain the registration filings with the court. They’ll notice the date of the registration filings 2022 2023 2024.

1:16:15 So what that shows is the court recently got some of these registrations and that changes the latches considerations as well. So the some of you know some of them go back as far as 2004 if I recall. Actually there was one. Yeah. So here here you have Book of Mormon registered November 11th 2025 24 file Book of Mormon stories again 25. Yeah. Now note that the longer they’re registered a number of their marks have obtained what they they they call uncontestable status which means you can’t contest the validity of the mark.

1:16:57 The the validity of these marks is going to be impossible to contest in any event. So, um, you know, the bottom line is that that the recent date may explain why the church waited. It wanted to make sure that the PTO would recognize it and that it could take these actions with the presumption. So, here’s what happens when you get a registration. There’s a presumed validity to the mark when you have a registration.

1:17:23 Okay? It it adds to the strength and power of the marking for when it’s validly registered. So that’s that’s the kind of thing you’re looking at there. And so the Yeah. And again here, so 2023 is when it when it um registered the Christristus and the Church of Jesus Christ saints. 2020 is when it did the um the the uh what do they call these? The the light rays. Light re. And so again, so yeah, that’s that’s going to be a hard a hard cell as far as the latches argument is concerned, I think.

1:18:03 Well, or other concerns. I don’t think they’ve got a defense based on whether the marks are valid or whether they’re, you know, whether they’re in fact recognized by the public, general public in a way that is alleged or that confusion could arise. They’re going to have a they’re not going to really be able to make any of those arguments. And again, just to kind of reiterate this, recently the church is in steep decline in the United States. For the first time in, I think a long long time, the the LDS church is actually shrinking in net membership, you know, versus growing slightly. And there’s a new prophet who I call lovingly uh the prophet sir and litigator Don H. Oaks, who once was a judge and an attorney himself. And I think the church is losing so many members, this is just my opinion, that it looks at people like you, Alyssa, and people like me as targets for um interventions because they don’t know how else to stop the hemorrhaging. And so that this is all my opinion. I could be wrong. I don’t know their motives for sure. And I

1:19:13 like that that he he doesn’t know what their motivations are, which are clearly identified in their pleadings. And so if they have other motivations, then yeah, it could be that they have validly registered marks that they want to protect, could it? Or that you are or that you are intentionally, as we saw with the video from the other the other video, you are intentionally causing brand confusion in order to misdirect young people to your materials. Observations.

1:19:42 The decline in membership in the United States mirrors the decline generally in interest in organized religion in the United States but even more among Protestant organizations. Right? There’s been a steep much steeper decline in other religious organizations. disengages the philosophy or or the logical error of post hawk ergo proctor hawk after this therefore because of this right it’s just a logical error for a guy with a PhD to reason this way is just honest to Pete it’s shameful it’s it’s embarrassing I’ll tell you if you want to if you want to get a little bit of a there is a a channel I think it’s called Ether’s elephant and the the uh gentleman who runs that podcast whose name escapes me did actually a great episode on the Lynn’s PhD dissert or his his PhD dissertation and um and it it’s actually quite interesting how poor it is. I mean even even from me from a a psychology sociology background looking through his research methods, his polling, his sampling, it’s abysmal.

1:20:51 It’s it’s has to do with with suicidality in in Utah as it relates to religiosity and it’s just it’s just abysmal the the the conclusion it’s like 35% it’s like 35% of all studies in social sciences it can’t be replicated right but what this shows is that his methodology is purposely aimed at getting a result that he wants and it’s dishonest in my opinion it’s a dishonest dissertation okay so I’m but that’s my view. Maybe people will disagree with me but the bottom line is is I you know Dindon wanted to give a black eye to the church and so that’s what he set out to do. There have been numerous subsequent studies demonstrating that what he’s asserting is exactly the opposite.

1:21:37 there’s less suicidality and so um yeah religious involvement every everything lowers divorce rates reduce suicidality reduce overall happiness increases with with religious involvement because forms it’s just not religiousness LDS religiousness in particular specifically is positively correlated with with happiness with success and and lower suicidality and So look, he wouldn’t be the first academic to get a result was counterindicated by subsequent study, right? Um but his methodology was clearly aimed at getting a result in my opinion.

1:22:19 Yeah. And I think that, you know, and to that degree, I I think that the church’s I think the church’s claim is clearly valid. I think that um whether or not they prevail, of course, that’s going to have to be determined by court. Um but let me make an observation. We have a few sayings. One that I would always tell my clients when they wanted to litigate was, “Look, you have to realize that OJ Simpson didn’t go to jail because he murdered his wife. He went to jail because he stole his own Heisman trophy back, right? He actually got acquitted for murdering his wife when there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary.” Wait a minute. You think he was guilty?

1:23:02 Hold it. You mean he wasn’t? I look anything can happen in a court of law and often does. I you know I’ve been at I practice for 38 years but in my experience it’s the case judges do the best they can. Juries always get the right result for the wrong reason. Okay. Right. That’s my experience. It’s my experience as well. I you know after after I’ve had cases we’ve gone out and you know that the times that we’ve been able to get the jury to stay behind or you can ask them what did you do? Why did you decide the case you did?

1:23:36 Um the the answers are always huh really that’s what you decided? That’s not even relevant. That’s not even a thing. I mean I won but I won on that. I what I I did a case where I did a postmortem with the jury and I asked them why they came up with the result they did and three of the jurors said it was because the church wouldn’t allow blacks to have the priesthood. Well, I don’t know what to say.

1:24:11 So, well, we’re always uh because I know that the defendants are always trying to look for some kind of impermissible, you know, tampering by one of the jurors. So, we had I had a jury a long time ago. It was a medical issue and there was a doctor on it on the jury. And that was the big thing. The defendant, you know, they they didn’t prevail. We did. And afterwards, they asked the they asked the uh doctor, “Did you influence them in any way?” And she says, “I didn’t say a word.” But again, just having knowing that she was a doctor probably had uninfluence on them that she decided the way she did, knowing that she was a doctor regardless of what she said. So again, if there were a couple of the jurors that said, “Well, she decided that way, so I did, too. She’s a doctor.” Let me give you some advice, especially as a plaintist story attorney. Never leave a doctor on your jury. So yeah, so there was a number of reasons why we did, but yes, there was but it was it

1:25:08 was a good decision based on what else we knew about her. And we were shocked. We were actually shocked the defendant didn’t kick her off. We thought we’re not going to we’re not going to gonna kick her off. Yeah. If I’m a plaintiff, if I may want a medical doctor onway jury just because to them $500,000 isn’t a lot of money. That’s actually yeah that’s that’s another good another good point is is sometimes the the amounts that people are asking for is is diff difficult but no and with respect to just kind of just kind of you know we’ve kind of addressed this legal issue just as a as a faithful perspective it is important to understand that the church’s considerations are are offering the means modes and methods of salvation and and following and accepting Jesus Christ that is their overwhelming and I think that that plays out in motivations for example where they are not seeking attorneys fees where they are not litigating the second that they I mean when they when John Delin lost his

1:26:08 membership in 2015 that would have been a great time for them to have said you know you’re doing something we’re going to go after you you’re you’re out outspoken you’re public you’re you’re causing people to do whatever and I I think that if if they if you wanted to make the argument the church was trying to silence him, that would have worked. But again, nothing from them for 10 years. They let him continue on. They let him have his way. Um, the church publishes the the uh the essays. But see, so that’s what the church does. The church responds with, “We believe that you’ve actually identified an issue that needs church response.” And they publish the the essays that address many of the issues that John Delin talks about in his podcast. So again, the church, let’s talk about this for a second.

1:26:57 Is the I mean, I’ve seen a number of comments Jesus wouldn’t bring a lawsuit. Oh, that’s a good that’s a good that’s a good topic. Yeah. And in the sermon on the mount, you know, he does seem to suggest you don’t litigate, you turn the other cheek, right? But he also is the one who said that there were people driving out demons in his own name and that they were evil because they were unauthorizedly using his name. Now, there were no there were no trademarks, patents, or trademarks in Jesus’s day.

1:27:25 And I’m not suggesting that you would think about a trademark lawsuit. That’s nonsense. Would also be sheer speculation. What I can say is that he cared about unauthorized use of his name. I should also point out that there’s a paracult. This is the one in Matthew in Mark. He says, well, it doesn’t matter if they’re casting out demons in our name. If they’re not against us, there’s poor us. which shows that the two peric cults are in direct contradiction with each other.

1:27:50 They’re about the very same thing, the very same saying, and they have very different meanings and results. And there goes solos scriptor and and uh you know, university for you. But the bottom line is that Jesus cared a great deal about whether people were using his name in an unauthorized way because he you know, and for the LDS church in particular, authority is a pretty big deal. But this lawsuit isn’t a religious lawsuit. It’s not about content of what he’s saying. It’s not about whether he’s spiritual or not. Because they’ve even sent a number of cease and desist or brought lawsuits against faithful members using it inappropriately.

1:28:27 What this lawsuit is about is a deceptive use of trademarks to draw people in. Now, let me also point out something else that’s very important. People say, “Well, anybody who listens for four or five minutes is going to understand this isn’t the eldest church.” That’s that may well be true, by the way. But that’s not the issue. If one is drawn to even, you know, look at something by the marks, that’s sufficient to show that it has this drying power. I don’t need to show that a person listened for a half hour before it came to their senses. The reality is is the mere fact that I look at it and it initially suggests that, oh, this may be from the LDS church and I’m going to go look at it. That’s sufficient in and of itself. I don’t need a minute, 2 minutes, 30 seconds. Nobody’s going to, you know, the judge won’t even allow to make an argument. Well, anybody who listens for 30 seconds is going to know that. The issue is what what happens when they look at the marks, not what happens when they listen to the podcast.

1:29:27 And so, I think that we ought to make that that clarification so the people understand it’s not about the content of the podcast at all. Well, and that and that’s why that’s why again that that the church is allowing him to uninterruptedly say whatever he wants. Again, the church is not pursuing attorneys. They’re not doing the things that are the the the d the the negative uh actions that a person would undertake if they were doing so to silence or or otherwise stop some.

1:29:54 I would ask for any punitive damages for his for his um intentional painting on the marks. Well, that’s why I use the that’s why I wanted to demonstrate with with the BIES claims. When people drive down the road, if you see something that says ease or keys, like monkeys or donkeys or whatever, and it makes you think Bies, and you pull off thinking, “Oh, this is like bies.” You know, already you’re causing brand confusion. And so it’s it’s just the way that you you identify especially if you’re the same kind of businesser. And again, communications, the way he presents his podcast, the way he markets, the titles he uses, all these things are are confusion. The church’s overriding responsibility and their goal. And I think it bears out if you really look at the the specifics of the church’s actions is to bring people into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.

1:30:50 And that is let’s reach out, John. The truth is that you’re not affiliated with the church. You claim to care about the truth. If that’s the case, you have nothing to fear from simply stating upfront, I’m not affiliated with the church of Jesus Christ states because it is the simple truth. So if you actually care about the truth, make the change, settle the lawsuit, and be done with it because it’s really simply and easily done. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill, I suspect, because you want a lot of publicity from this. You want to make money from it.

1:31:22 Don’t do that. It’s the morally wrong thing to do, right? It’s the eye. It’s pulling out. I mean, even even with the the cases, the pericaputes that you you identified in, you know, people who don’t think that the that the Lord would do this, but I think they’re they’re neglecting um like the third commandment. People often think that taking the name of the Lord in vain is simply using God in some kind of slur, but it’s not that. in in its context it’s talking about claiming to have the authority and to act in the name of and so these are that’s a specific commandment in three and then we see we see other examples of I mean you mentioned copyrights but we have like Deuteronomy 4:2 where the author of the Deuteronomy is saying don’t add to or take away from these things don’t interrupt or or alter Revelation 22:18 and 19 which of course we know closes the cannon and it’ll no canon when it was written. It’s not closing the cannon. No, I don’t.

1:32:24 No, but what it is is it’s it’s it’s the author of Revelation preserving the intent and the the content of his own writings. And so, saying I’m entitled to state what my writing is. You don’t get to add to an interpreter or take away from it in any way. It’s mine. It’s mine. Yeah. And so, these are these are things that I think that people don’t understand. and the idea that people would infringe anciently by writing sudonmous um uh materials, writing in the names of of famous people in order to have their writings heard. This is something that’s not new and and long has society done it. But copyright patent laws are are new. Those things did not exist in the ancient world. And so yeah, let’s let’s thank Abraham Lincoln for the idea of intellectual property.

1:33:09 Good for one one more thing we can thank Lincoln for is that we can actually protect the the sweat of our own brow. So exactly anyways anyways Blake thank you so much for joining us and and again it’s been a real pleasure having you on and and to benefit from your knowledge your experience and your intelligence. Again thanks everybody. It’s always great to deal with you. You take care.

1:33:33 Thanks. Appreciate it. Bye. You can follow along at missionary discussions and on the Instagram for more content throughout the week. And if you want to support what we’re doing here, please check the links below.