Imagine if McDonald’s could use trademark law to control how you use the term “fast food.” Or if the Canadian government could stop you from using the word “Canada” in the title of a book about the country and its people. That wouldn’t just be absurd; it would be an unacceptable obstacle to criticism of and commentary about those institutions. Yet the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “LDS Church”) has a track record of claiming exactly that kind of authority over the word “Mormon,” using the threat of expensive litigation to pressure speakers into compliance.
We at EFF have opposed the LDS Church’s abuse of trademark law for over a decade. In 2014, we filed an amicus brief when the church sued an online dating service for church members called Mormon Match. In 2016, it threatened legal action against our client the Mormon Mental Health Association, a nonprofit association for mental health professionals who work with members of Mormon faiths. In 2025, the church tried to pressure our client Burke Sorenson into changing the name of his Mormon News Roundup podcast. Now, the LDS Church has brought a lawsuit over a podcast called Mormon Stories that examines Mormonism and Mormon culture. With the help of attorneys at Ballard Spahr, EFF has filed an amicus brief in the case.
Our brief urges the district court to dismiss the case as soon as possible. Trademark is supposed to be about helping consumers identify the sources of the products they buy, not controlling criticism. That’s why our brief asks the court to use a test that’s more protective of speech than what’s applied in most trademark cases. This test, known as the Rogers test, has been adopted by many courts (but not yet this one) for cases where someone is using a trademark as part of an expressive work, rather than just as a brand name. We explain to the court that the Rogers test is an important First Amendment safeguard in part because it makes it easier to throw out meritless trademark claims before the most expensive parts of litigation, allowing more speakers to confidently stand up for their rights.
Our brief goes on to explain that First Amendment safeguards are especially important in cases like this one, where a plaintiff is seeking to control the use of a common term for its common meaning. Trademark law isn’t even supposed to extend to generic terms, and for good reason. Otherwise, we risk giving trademark owners power to control discussion and debate over entire topics.
It’s about time that a court shut down the LDS Church’s trademark bullying. We hope the court will do so here, while also taking the opportunity to endorse the Rogers test.
Facts Only
* The LDS Church has claimed authority over the word "Mormon" using threats of litigation.
* The EFF opposed the LDS Church's use of trademark law for over a decade.
* In 2014, the church sued an online dating service for church members called Mormon Match.
* In 2016, the church threatened legal action against the Mormon Mental Health Association.
* In 2025, the church attempted to pressure Burke Sorenson into changing the name of his Mormon News Roundup podcast.
* The LDS Church brought a lawsuit over a podcast called Mormon Stories that examines Mormonism and Mormon culture.
* EFF filed an amicus brief in the Mormon Stories case with attorneys at Ballard Spahr.
* The EFF brief urges dismissal of the case.
* The brief advocates for using the Rogers test, which protects speech more than typical trademark cases.
* Trademark law is not intended to control criticism or generic terms.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative establishes a tension between property rights (trademark) and fundamental rights (First Amendment expression). The core pattern involves an entity using legal mechanisms—specifically trademark claims—as a tool of social or ideological control over public discourse about specific groups, rather than merely protecting consumer identification. The progression from specific, harassing litigation against organizations to a broader advocacy for a judicial test like the Rogers test reveals a strategy focused on shifting the legal framework itself as the primary battlefield for securing speech rights. The implicit assumption is that if trademark law can be weaponized against expression regarding common terminology, the public sphere risks becoming subject to commercial policing. This pattern suggests an underlying skepticism toward the application of property-based law when addressing matters of public debate and religious/cultural commentary. The implication is that judicial interpretation must prioritize expressive freedom over proprietary claims when dealing with generic or shared cultural signifiers.
BRIDGE QUESTIONS: If trademark law is inherently ill-suited to regulate commentary on common terms, what alternative legal theories could effectively balance the interests of content creators against institutional claims? How can courts consistently apply the Rogers test across diverse contexts without allowing litigation threats to permanently chill critical discussion? What mechanisms exist to establish a clear boundary between protecting commercial branding and safeguarding public debate concerning shared cultural identities?
Sentinel — Human
This text reads as a structured legal advocacy piece written by an organization aiming to persuade a court based on principles of free speech and trademark law.