Photograph Credit score: Taylor Swift by Jana Beamer / CC by 2.0
Taylor Swift’s authorized workforce launches a counterattack in opposition to a former Vegas showgirl, accusing her of clout-chasing together with her trademark infringement declare.
Taylor Swift’s authorized workforce has formally opposed an injunction request from former Vegas showgirl Maren Wade, who filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in opposition to Swift earlier this yr over the title of her 2025 album, The Lifetime of a Showgirl. The attorneys labeled her lawsuit “meritless” and “absurd,” and claimed it was an try to take advantage of Swift’s fame for a “advertising and marketing enhance” for her personal model.
Maren Wade, whose authorized identify is Maren Flagg, filed her lawsuit in March in america District Courtroom in California. She owns the trademark for “Confessions of a Showgirl,” which she has owned since 2015 and used since writing a column in Las Vegas Weekly in 2014. The model has expanded right into a podcast and a stay cabaret present.
In her submitting, Flagg claimed that Swift’s The Lifetime of a Showgirl infringed upon her trademark and created unfair competitors for her personal model. The swimsuit even cites that when Swift utilized to register her trademark for the album, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Workplace initially declined as a result of it discovered it was too just like Flagg’s current trademark.
Flagg requested for a preliminary injunction to right away forestall Swift from additional use of her “Showgirl” model. However Swift’s workforce is understood for being aggressively litigious, and so they wasted no time in clapping again with a submitting of their very own.
“This movement, similar to Maren Flagg’s lawsuit, ought to by no means have been filed,” they wrote. “It’s merely Ms. Flagg’s newest try to make use of Taylor Swift’s identify and mental property to prop up her model.”
Based on their opposition, Swift’s legal professionals say that Flagg truly used Swift’s music and lyrics to advertise her “Confessions of a Showgirl” stage present. They additional threatened to pursue treatments for the “business misuse” of Swift’s mental property.
The submitting additionally asserts that there’s “no likelihood” of client confusion between the 2 manufacturers, citing the legendary consideration to element of Swift’s devoted followers, and noting the huge distinction between a “small, intimate” cabaret act and Swift’s world stadium performances. “That comparability is absurd,” her legal professionals wrote.
Swift’s workforce additionally asks the choose to think about why Flagg is asking for quick reduction on the idea of irreparable harm to her model an entire eight months after the album was first introduced. They argue that Flagg in truth spent a number of of these months trying to affiliate herself extra carefully with Swift’s “Showgirl” branding in her personal.
“Because the album announcement, plaintiff has reframed her model across the album, flooding her social media accounts with posts trying to align herself with Ms. Swift and the album,” the submitting reads. “Previous to the album announcement, plaintiff had by no means used ‘the lifetime of a showgirl’ in her social media promotion. Following the announcement, plaintiff used the phrase or posted usually about Ms. Swift or the album over 40 occasions on her branded Instagram and TikTok accounts.”
“In truth, a mere 4 days after Ms. Swift introduced her album title and art work in August 2025, Ms. Flagg introduced a brand-new podcast mimicking Ms. Swift’s album art work, emblem, title, and taglines. Then, plaintiff flooded her Instagram and TikTok pages with 40+ ads for her model utilizing Ms. Swift’s music, emblems, and different mental property with out permission.”
Every of those, the temporary claims, constitutes actionable infringement, and that TAS Rights Administration “shall be pursuing acceptable treatments for that.”
