Taylor Swift’s Attorneys Fire Back in Trademark Lawsuit Over ‘Showgirl’

Taylor Swift‘s attorneys have slapped again at a lawsuit filed by a former Las Vegas showgirl who claims that the pop famous person’s “The Life of a Showgirl” album title infringes on her trademark for the phrase “Confessions of a Showgirl.” The legal professionals name the argument that there may very well be confusion between the providers supplied by the 2 girls “absurd.”

Maren Flagg, who performs as Maren Wade, filed the lawsuit in United States District Court in California in late March. She trademarked “Confessions of a Showgirl” in 2015 and has used it for a newspaper column, podcast and cabaret performances. Her lawsuit claimed that the 2 titles “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.”

Flagg requested for a preliminary injunction that will instantly bar Swift from additional use of the “Life of a Showgirl” model. A short filed Wednesday by Swift’s attorneys and reviewed by Variety begins: “This movement, similar to Maren Flagg’s lawsuit, ought to by no means have been filed. It is just Ms. Flagg’s newest try to make use of Taylor Swift’s title and mental property to prop up her model…

“Plaintiff attempts to broadly lump her cabaret show and defendants’ musical album together as ‘entertainment services.’ That comparison is absurd,” Swift’s lawyers continue. They argue there is little chance of confusion between Swift’s top-grossing stadium tour and cabaret appearances in which the defendant “performs, if in any respect, in small intimate venues, resembling: ’55+ energetic neighborhood,’ ’55+ golf resort’; ‘RV & Golf Resort’; ’90 seat cabaret-style venue’ that gives dinner; lodge; and personal supper membership. Her web site lists no upcoming performances.”

Furthermore, Swift’s crew asks the decide to think about why Flagg is asking for instant reduction on the idea of irreparable hurt eight months after the album was first introduced — and argues that Flagg spent a number of of these months making an attempt to affiliate herself with “The Life of a Showgirl” in her messaging.

“Since the album announcement, plaintiff has reframed her brand around the album, flooding her social media accounts with posts attempting to align herself with Ms. Swift and the album,” the temporary says. “Prior to the album announcement, plaintiff had never used ‘the life of a showgirl’ in her social media promotion. Following the announcement, plaintiff used the phrase or posted generally about Ms. Swift or the album over 40 times on her branded Instagram and TikTok accounts.”

Swift’s attorneys counsel that they could be going after Flagg for her personal use of Swift’s music and imagery.

“Far from exhibiting any concern in regards to the album after its announcement, Ms. Flagg spent a number of months centering her model on ‘The Life of a Showgirl’s’ title, paintings, music, and lyrics to advertise her little-known cabaret present,” reads the brief. “In reality, a mere 4 days after Ms. Swift introduced her album title and paintings in August 2025, Ms. Flagg introduced a brand-new podcast mimicking Ms. Swift’s Album paintings, brand, title, and taglines. Then, plaintiff flooded her Instagram and TikTok pages with 40+ ads for her model utilizing Ms. Swift’s music, logos, and different mental property with out permission.

“Each of these advertisements constitutes actionable infringement,” the temporary argues, “and TASRM [TAS Rights Management] shall be pursuing acceptable treatments for that…

“In one post,” the submitting goes on to say, “plaintiff used an album cover logo, audio from the album title track, hashtags including #thelifeofashowgirl; #swifties; #ts12; and #taylornation, and discussed an official album release event. In addition to attempting to confuse consumers, plaintiff’s commercial use of Ms. Swift’s art constitutes clear infringement under federal law.”

Flagg’s lawsuit mentioned the continuing gross sales of Swift’s album brought about severe hurt to her enterprise efforts. “Each additional sale compounds the confusion in the marketplace and further erodes [Wade’s] ability to be recognized as the soul source of her Confessions of a Showgirl brand.” Among the go well with’s competition is that her personal web site and posts have been pushed down in search outcomes by Swift’s ubiquitous branding.

In an interview with Rolling Stone following the preliminary submitting of the lawsuit, Jaymie Parkkinen, an legal professional for Flagg, mentioned that his shopper “spent more than a decadent building ‘Confessions of a Showgirl.’ She registered it. She earned it. When Taylor Swift’s team applied to register ‘The Life of a Showgirl,’ the Trademark Office refused,” which he attributed to a battle with Flagg’s current mark.

The temporary from Swift’s legal professionals argues that, no matter different elements, the pop star’s album title is protected by the First Amendment. Her legal professionals cite the circumstances of Rogers v. Grimaldi and Lost Int’l, LLC v. Germanotta, the latter being a go well with in which Lady Gaga was accused of appropriating her “Mayhem” album title and brand by a surfboard firm. Swift’s crew argues primarily based on these circumstances that “if a work is expressive, a plaintiff cannot establish infringement without showing the title (1) is either not artistically relevant to the underlying work; or (2) explicitly misleads as to the source or content of the work. This is because titles of expressive works ‘implicate the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech’ and ‘consumers are less likely to mistake the use of someone else’s mark in an expressive work for a sign of association, authorship, or endorsement.” Songs and album titles are the core kind of expressive First Amendment work that Rogers protects.”

The attorneys additionally argue that works with related titles since Flagg obtained her trademark have come and gone with out problem, together with “Confessions of a Goddess,” “Confessions of a Vegas Showgirl,” “Portrait of a Showgirl” and “The Last Showgirl.”

The temporary was filed Wednesday by Max N. Wellman on behalf of himself and fellow attorneys J. Douglas Baldridge and Katherine Wright Morrone. They are representing Swift in addition to her co-defendants TAS Rights Management, UMG Recordings and Bravado International Group Merchandising Services.

No trial date has been set.