Taylor Swift‘s authorized crew has filed an opposition to a movement for preliminary injunction that sought to dam the pop star’s use of The Lifetime of a Showgirl album title, accusing the plaintiff of making an attempt to “use Taylor Swift’s identify and mental property to prop up her model.”
The opposition temporary, filed on Wednesday (Might 6) within the US District Courtroom for the Central District of California, was submitted on behalf of Swift, TAS Rights Administration (TASRM), UMG Recordings, and UMG‘s merch firm Bravado Worldwide Group Merchandising Companies.
A listening to on the injunction movement is scheduled for Might 27 in Los Angeles.
The lawsuit was introduced by Maren Flagg, who performs as Maren Wade, in March.
Flagg alleged that Swift‘s twelfth studio album title infringed on her trademark for Confessions of a Showgirl, a phrase she registered in 2015 with the US Patent and Trademark Workplace and has used for a cabaret present, a e book, a podcast and video content material.
Flagg‘s model originated as a column for Las Vegas Weekly starting in 2014.
She then filed a movement for preliminary injunction in April, searching for to right away bar Swift from all use of The Lifetime of a Showgirl.
In the opposition temporary, which you’ll learn in full right here, Swift‘s legal professionals at Venable LLP argued that the case “ought to by no means have been filed,” describing it as “Flagg‘s newest try to make use of Taylor Swift‘s identify and mental property to prop up her model.”
In line with the court docket doc, Flagg “spent a number of months centering her model on The Lifetime of a Showgirl‘s identify, paintings, music, and lyrics to advertise her little-known cabaret present”.
“The truth is, 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, emblem, title, and taglines,” the submitting states.
Swift‘s legal professionals alleged that Flagg flooded her Instagram and TikTok pages with greater than 40 adverts for her model utilizing Swift‘s music, emblems, and different mental property with out permission.
“Every of those commercials constitutes actionable infringement, and TASRM will probably be pursuing applicable cures for that intentional, industrial misuse,” in response to the submitting.
Swift‘s authorized crew additionally alleged that Flagg shifted her branding from pinks and yellows to a mint backdrop with an elongated font and different options that, in response to the submitting, “clearly [evoke] the imagery of the album and its associated promotional supplies.”
The opposition argues that the album title is protected below the First Modification, citing the Rogers v. Grimaldi check utilized by the Ninth Circuit.
Underneath that check, a plaintiff can’t set up infringement of a trademark used within the title of an expressive work except the title is both not artistically related to the underlying work, or explicitly misleads as to its supply.
The defendants’ temporary pointed to a ruling from a sister court docket in the identical district in December 2025, through which a decide denied a preliminary injunction sought by a surfboard firm towards Woman Gaga over using “Mayhem” because the title of her album and on associated items.
That case – Misplaced Worldwide, LLC v. Germanotta – discovered that an album title and its related promotional merchandise are expressive works protected by Rogers, the temporary famous.
“This holding is on all fours with the Album and related items at problem right here,” Swift‘s legal professionals wrote.
In line with the submitting, Swift mentioned the inspiration for the album’s title got here from her expertise performing throughout The Eras Tour, describing it as “actually residing the lifetime of a showgirl.”
“It’s readily obvious that the Album is related to Ms. Swift, because it depicts her immediately recognizable identify and/or likeness on the Album and all associated advertising and marketing and promotional supplies,” the submitting states.
On the query of shopper confusion, Swift‘s authorized crew drew a distinction between the size of the 2 events’ operations.
The submitting famous that Flagg “performs, if in any respect, in small intimate venues, corresponding to a: ’55+ energetic neighborhood’; ’55+ golf resort’; ‘RV & Golf Resort’; ’90 seat cabaret-style venue’ that provides dinner; lodge; and personal supper membership.”
In contrast, The Lifetime of a Showgirl shattered US gross sales data upon its launch in October, promoting over 4 million models and producing almost 681 million streams in its first week within the US alone, in response to the submitting.
The album was the highest-selling album of 2025, with over 6 million models offered that yr, the submitting states.
Swift was subsequently named IFPI’s biggest-selling recording artist globally for the yr, marking her sixth time profitable the award.
Flagg’s 12 examples of alleged shopper confusion – consisting of nameless social media posts and feedback – amounted to not more than “remoted unauthenticated net postings,” the defendants argued, citing case regulation holding that “a handful of examples of anecdotal confusion are inadequate to help a discovering [of] confusion.”
The defendants additionally argued that Flagg‘s eight-month delay in searching for reduction (she acknowledged figuring out concerning the album in August 2025 however didn’t file her movement till April 2026) undermined her declare of irreparable hurt.
If an injunction had been to be granted, Swift‘s legal professionals argued, it might require the elimination of all album and album-related merchandise from the bodily and digital market, the cancellation of gross sales, the destruction of products, and would end in losses possible totaling “within the tens of tens of millions of {dollars}.”
The defendants additionally filed a proposed order alongside their opposition temporary, asking the court docket to disclaim the injunction.
Flagg‘s legal professional, Jaymie Parkkinen, responded in an announcement to Billboard: “We learn it. Defendants assert First Modification safety for napkins and hairbrushes. We sit up for submitting our response subsequent week.”Music Enterprise Worldwide
