The musician’s legal representatives submitted a proposed order requesting a denial of Maren Flagg’s motion for a preliminary injunction
Last month, Maren Flagg, who is suing Taylor Swift for trademark infringement over The Life of a Showgirl, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. At the time, attorneys for Swift had yet to respond to the lawsuit initially filed in March. Earlier this week, the musician’s legal representatives submitted a brief in opposition to the request along with a proposed order requesting a denial of the motion.
“This motion, just like Maren Flagg’s lawsuit, should never have been filed. It is simply Ms. Flagg’s latest attempt to use Taylor Swift’s name and intellectual property to prop up her brand,” Swift’s attorneys said, referring to the suit as “absurd.”
Flagg, who performs as Maren Wade, trademarked “Confessions of a Showgirl” in 2015, in connection with a live show and touring production. She claims the “similarity” between her mark and Swift’s The Life of a Showgirl is “immediate.” Her lawsuit claimed the two entities “share the same structure, the same dominant phrase, and the same overall commercial impression. Both are used in overlapping markets and are directed at the same consumers.”
Attorneys for Swift argued that Flagg has used the announcement and release of The Life of a Showgirl to “reframe her brand” around the record by “flooding her social media accounts with posts attempting to align herself with Ms. Swift and the album.” They cite her use of “hashtags including #thelifeofashowgirl; #swifties; #ts12; and #taylornation,” in social media posts that also featured the album cover logo and music from “The Life of a Showgirl.”
The proposed order argues that Flagg’s “conduct — repeatedly attempting to associate herself with Defendant Swift and the Album — bars her from the preliminary injunctive relief she seeks.” The document also proposes that Flagg has not sufficiently shown how consumers could confuse The Life of a Showgirl with her cabaret show, how she would suffer irreparable harm, or evidence that Swift intended to infringe on her trademark.
It also states, “As a separate basis for denial of the Motion, Defendants’ use of The Life of a Showgirl in connection with the Album and promotional merchandise is part of an expressive work protected by the First Amendment.” Here, the attorneys cite the sufficient evidence they provided “supporting that the Album’s title is relevant to the underlying work and there is no evidence that Defendants sought to explicitly mislead the public as to the source of the Album.”
Representatives for Swift and Flagg did not immediately respond to Rolling Stone‘s request for comment.
