In March, the musician was sued for $100 million by the brand Lost International, which claims her Mayhem designs rip off one of its logos
A Los Angeles judge has decided that Lost International, a prominent surf and lifestyle brand, cannot claim trademark infringement through the Lanham Act (Trademark Act of 1946) to block Lady Gaga from selling Mayhem merchandise as part of its an ongoing $100 million lawsuit.
The suit, filed in March, alleges that some of the musician’s Mayhem merchandise designs copy one of its logos. Judge Fernando M. Olguin’s latest decision dismisses the request for Gaga to be blocked from selling merch using the logo, which she has been doing since The Mayhem Ball Tour began in July 2025.
“Because defendant’s use of the mark is artistically relevant and does not explicitly mislead consumers as to the source or content of the challenged work, the Lanham Act does not apply, and [plaintiff] cannot succeed on its claims for trademark infringement and false designation of origin,” Olguin wrote.
This isn’t the end of the lawsuit, which Lost International said it filed only after sending a notice about the alleged infringement to Gaga’s team, alleging the musician “failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse to cease her willful and blatant infringing.”
Lawyers for Lost International and Lady Gaga did not immediately return Rolling Stone‘s requests for comment.
“While we would have preferred a different outcome at this preliminary stage, we respect the court’s reasoning and look forward to continuing this process,” lawyers for Lost International said in response to the ruling, per Billboard. “Our commitment to protecting the MAYHEM® trademark we’ve built over nearly four decades remains unchanged. We remain open to a constructive dialogue that protects consumers from confusion while allowing artists to express themselves.”
Legal representatives for Gaga told Billboard, “It reaffirms that trademark law cannot be used to censor expressive works or chill artistic expression. We are pleased with the court’s clear and decisive ruling.”
