Taylor Swift’s lawyers have come out swinging in their first response to a trademark lawsuit over her record-smashing latest album The Life of a Showgirl, accusing the plaintiff of “attempting to get the attention of Ms. Swift’s fandom for her own gain.”
Swift’s legal team at the firm Venable LLP filed legal papers on Wednesday (May 6) in the lawsuit brought by Maren Wade, a Las Vegas-based performer who puts on a cabaret show called “Confessions of a Showgirl.” Wade (born Maren Flagg) alleges The Life of a Showgirl infringes her intellectual property, and she’s seeking an immediate injunction to bar the pop superstar from selling album merch while the litigation plays out.
Swift’s lawyers are now opposing that injunction request, which they say would cost tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue if granted. Wednesday’s court filing, obtained by Billboard, argues that Flagg “embraced and sought to associate herself” with The Life of a Showgirl to get a “marketing boost.” They cite more than 40 posts on Flagg’s Instagram and TikTok pages that feature Swift’s music, plus hashtags like #thelifeofashowgirl, #TS12, #taylorswift and #swifties.
“Far from showing any concern about the album after its announcement, Ms. Flagg spent several months centering her brand on The Life of a Showgirl’s name, artwork, music and lyrics to promote her little-known cabaret show,” reads the filing. “When plaintiff’s attempts to exploit Ms. Swift’s intellectual property failed to garner the desired attention (likely because, despite Ms. Flagg’s best efforts, consumers were not confused into believing these two brands were even remotely connected), she concocted a meritless lawsuit.”
Swift’s attorneys say Flagg is actually the one here who has committed infringement by misusing the star’s intellectual property, and they “will be pursuing appropriate remedies for that intentional, commercial misuse.” This echoes the strategy Swift’s team employed when Utah’s Evermore Park filed a trademark lawsuit in 2021 over her album Evermore, and she countersued the theme park for playing her music without proper licenses. Both cases were ultimately dropped with no money exchanged.
Wednesday’s response papers argue that a judge should reject Flagg’s injunction motion because The Life of a Showgirl merch is tied to Swift’s First Amendment-protected expression, citing Lady Gaga’s victory over a similar request to stop sales of her Mayhem album merch amid a trademark lawsuit late last year. Even without artistic expression protections, Swift’s lawyers say the motion fails because there’s no chance of customers mistaking “Confessions of a Showgirl” for The Life of a Showgirl.
“It is widely known that Ms. Swift’s fanbase is a dedicated and informed set of consumers,” reads the filing. “Their attention to detail is legendary when it comes to information about Ms. Swift’s albums or merchandise, with fans eagerly detecting ‘easter eggs’ and pouring over Ms. Swift’s works in connection with numerology codes and word searches. There is no chance they would be confused between plaintiff’s cabaret shows and Ms. Swift’s album and related promotional merchandise.”
Swift’s lawyers also spend some time in the court papers attacking the purported similarities between the two trademarks, noting that they have different dominant terms, fonts, color schemes, spacing and meanings. And they say that while both marks cover live entertainment, it’s “absurd” to compare the “Confessions of a Showgirl” act to something like The Eras Tour: “‘[Swift’s] performances are musical concerts at sold-out stadiums with thousands of attendees, not at golf resorts or cabaret-style venues.”
Because of all this, Swift’s lawyers say they will win in the long run at registering a trademark for The Life of a Showgirl, even though the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initially rejected their application due to a likelihood of confusion with Flagg’s prior mark. They say the process remains ongoing, emphasizing that this prior “nonfinal office action is exactly what it sounds like, not final (and not uncommon).”
Flagg’s lawyers will now get a chance to rebut Swift’s arguments in another court filing of their own. A federal judge is then set to weigh the injunction request at a hearing scheduled for May 27 in Los Angeles.
In a statement responding to Swift’s opposition filing on Thursday (May 7), Flagg’s attorney Jaymie Parkkinen said, “We read it. Defendants assert First Amendment protection for napkins and hairbrushes. We look forward to filing our response next week.”
