Taylor Swift performing live. Photo Credit: Eva Rinaldi
Right on cue, Taylor Swift’s legal team has fired back against the refiled Life of a Showgirl trademark suit, which is allegedly an “attempt to generate publicity,” replete with “fatal flaws,” and deserving of dismissal with prejudice.
Attorneys for Swift and Universal Music moved to toss the amended complaint yesterday, after entertainer Maren Wade submitted the action in mid-June. As we previously reported, Wade claims to have built a career around the Confessions of a Showgirl brand, which she trademarked in 2015.
And consequently, the Nevada-based plaintiff has taken issue with Swift’s Life of a Showgirl and the ample related merch that’s become available for purchase. In brief, the alleged infringement is misleading consumers (including by causing “reverse confusion”) and threatening “to overwhelm” the older mark, according to the action.
Now, Team Swift has rather unsurprisingly come out swinging against the amended complaint, which is allegedly barred by the First Amendment.
“Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s attempts to characterize the Album as a ‘brand,’” a relevant line reads, “the reality is that it is a musical album. It is an expressive work titled The Life of a Showgirl, and is protected by the First Amendment. This protection extends to associated merchandise. Plaintiff’s claims therefore fail as a matter of law.”
Additionally, the filing party has allegedly failed to demonstrate “that reasonably prudent consumers are likely to be confused as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the goods and services at issue,” per the defendants.
Next, the “conceptually weak” central trademark is purportedly “comprised of common dictionary terms describing” Wade’s “cabaret-style show,” and the involved goods are allegedly dissimilar to The Life of a Showgirl and its promo items.
Finally, when it comes to Swift’s Life of a Showgirl trademark-application rejection, “the USPTO’s preliminary office action is nonfinal and raised no objection to twelve proposed classes of goods,” the defendants maintain.
“Dressing up a nonfinal office action (involving an intent-to-use Application) as proof of confusion underscores Plaintiff’s lack of plausible facts. In sum, Plaintiff’s allegations simply amount to formulaic recitations of the elements of trademark infringement insufficient to sustain the claim and requiring dismissal,” the motion reads.
With that – plus a few jurisdictional questions, centering on Swift’s residence in Tennessee, concerning the California-filed complaint – time will tell which of the significantly different showgirl arguments convinces the court.
Meanwhile, the trademark train is chugging along for Swift, who in August 2025 sought a Taylor Swift (Taylor’s Version) mark covering candles, clocks, gift bags, guitar picks, coffee mugs, and a whole lot else.
That same month, the artist filed to trademark the “letters ‘T’ and ‘S’ with star designs appearing after each letter,” a different application shows.