Taylor Swift has been a party to lawsuits covering trademark, copyright, and sexual assault claims, including a 2017 groping trial that ended with a symbolic $1 verdict in her favor, a dismissed copyright fight over “Shake It Off,” a mutually dropped trademark battle with a Utah theme park, a copyright claim over her “Lover” book that ended without a settlement, and a pending trademark case brought by a Las Vegas performer over the title of her 2025 album “The Life of a Showgirl.”
The Life of a Showgirl Trademark Case
On March 30, 2026, Las Vegas entertainer Maren Flagg, who performs as Maren Wade, sued Swift, Universal Music Group, Bravado International Group Merchandising Services, and TAS Rights Management in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.1NBC News. Taylor Swift Sued by Las Vegas Showgirl for Trademark Infringement The case number is 2:26-cv-03354.2California Lawyers Association. Taylor Swift’s Showgirl Merch Under Fire in Trademark Lawsuit
Wade trademarked “Confessions of a Showgirl” in August 2015 after launching a column by that name in Las Vegas Weekly in 2014. The mark covers live stage performances, theatrical productions, television programming, and online publications, and the column grew into a live cabaret and touring show.3USA Today. Taylor Swift’s Showgirl Trademark Delayed Over Legal Questions
What Wade Claims
The complaint argues that “The Life of a Showgirl” and “Confessions of a Showgirl” share the same structure, dominant phrase, and overall commercial impression, and reach overlapping consumers.1NBC News. Taylor Swift Sued by Las Vegas Showgirl for Trademark Infringement A key piece of the case: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused Swift’s application (serial number 99331566, covering entertainment services and candles), finding “The Life of a Showgirl” confusingly similar to Wade’s mark because the shared phrase “of a showgirl” outweighed the difference between “The Life” and “Confessions.”4Gerben Law Firm. Taylor Swift’s Trademark for Life of a Showgirl Refused by USPTO
Wade’s theory is “reverse confusion,” in which a larger, later-arriving brand overwhelms a smaller, pre-existing one so that consumers see the original as the imitation.5Bloomberg Law. Taylor Swift’s IP Savvy Becomes a Liability in Showgirl Suit She is seeking a preliminary injunction against Swift’s continued use of the title, recovery of merchandise profits, legal fees, and a jury trial.6ABC News. Taylor Swift Faces Trademark Infringement Lawsuit From Vegas Performer
Swift’s Response
On May 6, 2026, Swift’s team at Venable LLP filed a brief calling the claims “absurd.”7Billboard. Taylor Swift Fights Life of a Showgirl Trademark Lawsuit The defense argues no reasonable consumer would confuse Swift’s stadium concerts with Wade’s cabaret performances in 55-plus communities, golf resorts, and 90-seat venues, and it points to differences in dominant terms, fonts, color schemes, spacing, and meanings between the brands.8Variety. Taylor Swift Attorneys Fire Back at Trademark Lawsuit Over Showgirl
Swift’s brief also invokes the First Amendment under the Rogers v. Grimaldi test, which shields artistic uses of trademarks unless they are irrelevant to the underlying work or explicitly mislead consumers. The team cites a December 2025 ruling for Lady Gaga, Lost International v. Germanotta, where Judge Fernando M. Olguin held that merchandise for Gaga’s “Mayhem” album was protected expression rather than an independent brand.9ASI Central. Judge Rules in Favor of Lady Gaga Over Mayhem Trademark Dispute Wade’s attorney Jaymie Parkkinen counters that by applying to register the phrase as a trademark, Swift signaled it was being used as a source identifier, which under the Supreme Court’s 2023 Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products decision strips away the Rogers shield and forces a standard likelihood-of-confusion analysis.10Justia. Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC
Swift’s lawyers describe the USPTO refusal as a “nonfinal office action” that is “not uncommon” and characterize the lawsuit itself as a publicity effort, pointing to more than 40 social media posts in which Wade allegedly used Swift’s music, artwork, and hashtags such as #TS12, #swifties, and #thelifeofashowgirl after the August 2025 album announcement.11Rolling Stone. Taylor Swift Trademark Lawsuit Attorneys Argument Absurd TAS Rights Management has hinted at its own action against Wade for what the brief calls “intentional, commercial misuse” of Swift’s intellectual property.8Variety. Taylor Swift Attorneys Fire Back at Trademark Lawsuit Over Showgirl
Where the Case Stands
U.S. District Judge Serena Murillo heard Wade’s motion for a preliminary injunction on May 27, 2026, and took it under submission without an immediate ruling. Swift filed a motion to dismiss on May 26, 2026, with a hearing set for August 5, 2026. No trial date has been set.12Courthouse News Service. Vegas Showgirl Asks Judge to Halt Taylor Swift’s Use of Life of a Showgirl13Olshan Law. You Can’t Have It Both Ways — Taylor Swift Responds in Life of a Showgirl Infringement Case
The $1 Sexual Assault Verdict Against David Mueller
In June 2013, at a pre-concert meet-and-greet on her “Red” tour, Swift alleged that David Mueller, a Denver radio DJ for KYGO-FM, reached under her skirt and grabbed her. Swift testified that “he stayed attached to my bare ass-cheek as I lurched away from him. It was a definite grab. A very long grab.”14CBS News. Taylor Swift Awarded $1 in Groping Trial
Swift’s team did not report the incident to police but told Mueller’s employer, and he was fired. Mueller then sued Swift, her mother Andrea Swift, and her radio liaison Frank Bell, claiming the report cost him his $150,000-a-year job and seeking up to $3 million. Swift countersued for assault and battery and asked for a single dollar in damages.14CBS News. Taylor Swift Awarded $1 in Groping Trial
On August 11, 2017, U.S. District Judge William Martinez dismissed Mueller’s claims against Swift, finding no evidence she had done more than report the incident to her own team. Three days later, a Denver federal jury found that Mueller had assaulted and battered Swift and awarded her the $1 she requested, while also rejecting Mueller’s remaining claims against Andrea Swift and Frank Bell. Swift said afterward that she acknowledged “the privilege that I benefit from in life, in society and in my ability to shoulder the enormous cost of defending myself in a trial like this,” and pledged donations to organizations helping sexual assault victims.15BBC. Taylor Swift Wins Sexual Assault Case Against DJ
The Shake It Off Copyright Case
Songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler sued Swift in September 2017, alleging that her 2014 hit “Shake It Off” borrowed the phrases “playas gonna play” and “haters gonna hate” from their 2001 song “Playas Gon’ Play,” recorded by 3LW. They argued they had combined the phrases in a “completely original and unique” way.16GW Law MCIR. Sean Hall et al. v. Taylor Swift et al. Swift said she had never heard the song and drew on common expressions like “don’t hate the playa, hate the game.”17Variety. Taylor Swift Shake It Off Lawsuit Dropped
U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald dismissed the case in February 2018, calling the lyrics too “banal” to warrant copyright protection. The Ninth Circuit reversed in October 2019, holding that originality was a factual question for a jury.18BBC. Taylor Swift Shake It Off Copyright Lawsuit Dismissed A trial was set for January 17, 2023, but on December 12, 2022, the parties settled and Judge Fitzgerald dismissed the lawsuit “in its entirety and with prejudice.” Terms were not disclosed, and songwriting credits for “Shake It Off” still list Swift, Max Martin, and Shellback.17Variety. Taylor Swift Shake It Off Lawsuit Dropped
The Evermore Park Trademark Dispute
After Swift released “Evermore” in December 2020, Evermore Park, a fantasy-themed attraction in Pleasant Grove, Utah, sued Swift, TAS Rights Management, and Taylor Nation in Utah federal court on February 2, 2021. The park alleged that the album and its merchandise infringed its trademarks, that Swift’s online presence “crowded out” its digital footprint, that its website traffic had jumped 330.4% after the announcement, and that Swift’s “willow” music video shared visual similarities with the park’s branding. It sought $2 million per counterfeit mark.19Forbes. Here’s Why Taylor Swift Is Fighting With Evermore Utah Theme Park
Swift’s team called the suit “baseless” and countersued on February 22, 2021, in the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging that the park had been performing Swift songs (including “Bad Blood,” “You Belong With Me,” and “Love Story”) without a license since 2018 and had ignored BMI cease-and-desist letters. About a month later both sides dropped their claims, and no money changed hands.20Variety. Taylor Swift and Evermore Park Drop Lawsuits
The Lover Book Copyright Claim
Teresa La Dart sued Swift in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging that the book packaged with Swift’s 2019 “Lover” album copied the title and creative elements of La Dart’s 2010 self-published poetry book of the same name. She pointed to shared pastel pinks and blues, images of the author in a “downward pose,” and a format combining photographs with personal writings, and initially sought more than $1 million.21Pitchfork. Taylor Swift Wins Copyright Lawsuit Over Lover Book Design After the case was referred to mediation, La Dart voluntarily dismissed it on July 27, 2023, without a settlement.22Bloomberg Law. Taylor Swift Beats $1 Million Lover Book Copyright Lawsuit
Why the Showgirl Case Could Matter Beyond Swift
Swift has filed more than 300 trademark applications in the United States through TAS Rights Management, covering album titles, lyrics, tour names, merchandise, and pet names.23WIPO Magazine. Taylor Swift Trademark Strategy: A Model for Artist IP Protection Bloomberg Law has reported that this same aggressive registration strategy is what Wade’s team is trying to use against her: applying to register a phrase as a trademark suggests it identifies the source of goods, which under Jack Daniel’s can pull an album title out of the First Amendment safe harbor that normally protects expressive works.5Bloomberg Law. Taylor Swift’s IP Savvy Becomes a Liability in Showgirl Suit How Judge Murillo handles that argument will shape how major recording artists and smaller trademark holders litigate similar disputes.