Taylor Swift Fights Suit Over "The Life of a Showgirl" Album

0:00Dog grooming genius here. Most people see a busy dog salon, but I see operational excellence. Thanks to Genius from Global Payments. Scheduling, personalized. Checkouts, instant. Absolutely genius. From game day crowds to every groomer in this shop, Genius keeps everything flowing seamlessly. Schnauzer is styled. Flawless execution. Big league reliability for any business. That's genius. Never bet against American grit or American energy. Through innovation, Venture Global is not only building some of the largest energy facilities in the world right here in the United States, but delivering American energy at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the time.

0:48So while others are busy talking, we're busy building. That's Venture Global. That's unstoppable energy.

1:00Support for the show comes from Public. Public is an investing platform that offers access to stocks, options, bonds, and crypto. And they've also integrated AI with tools that can assist investors in building customized portfolios. One of these tools is called Generated Assets. It allows you to turn your ideas into investable indexes. So let's say you're interested in something specific like biotech companies with high R &D spend, small cap stocks with improving operating margins or the S &P 500 minus high debt companies. Chances are there isn't an ETF that fits your exact criteria. But on public, you just type in a prompt and their AI screens thousands of stocks and build a one-of-a-kind index.

1:40You can even backtest it against the S &P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Go to public.com slash market and earn an uncapped 1 % bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com slash market. Ad paid for by Public Holdings. Brokered services by Public Investing, member FINRA SIPC. Advisory services by Public Advisors, SEC Registered Advisor. Crypto services by ZeroHash. Sample prompts are for illustrative purposes only, not investment advice. All investing involves risk of loss. See complete disclosures at public.com slash disclosures.

2:15This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

2:37Taylor Swift's The Life of a Showgirl was the fastest selling album in history. It became the pop star's 15th number one album. Not quite as fast moving, in fact, about six months later, came the lawsuit by a former Las Vegas showgirl who claimed that the album's title infringed on her trademark for the phrase, confessions of a showgirl. And Maren Flagg is asking a court for a preliminary injunction to stop Swift from using the phrase while the litigation plays out. My guest is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross, a partner at Katnuchin Rosenman. Terry, tell us about this trademark infringement dispute.

3:20The plaintiff was a showgirl in Las Vegas. She, at one point in time, started a blog, I guess it would have been called in those days, talking about her life as a showgirl and how challenging and difficult life in the entertainment business Las Vegas is. It morphed over time into a cabaret show. She, at one point, decided that she would register as a trademark the title she was using for this, which is Confessions of a Showgirl. And that was back in 2014. In August of 2025, last August, Taylor Swift announces her next album will be entitled The Life of a Showgirl based on her experiences of her worldwide tour.

4:12The plaintiff, Miss Flagg, saw this at the time as everybody in America did. Everybody knew that Taylor Swift had a new album coming out. It was going to be called Life of a Showgirl. Ms. Flagg chose not to do anything. In the paper, she argues that, well, she did not realize that it was going to be used as broadly. She did not realize that Taylor Swift was going to seek a trademark registration in it. She has other excuses. Shortly after the announcement, Taylor Swift's lawyers applied for a trademark registration in the wordmark The Life of a Showgirl. In, I think it was November of 2025, the United States Trademark Office issued a non-final office action saying that they were going to deny the application as likely confusing with other marks that already existed.

5:04Notwithstanding that, the album was launched. A wide range of products were sold. The album used the title, Life of a Show Girl, and many of these products that were being sold by Taylor Swift's various business entities also used that, clearly in a trademark sense. In March of 2026, the United States Trademark Office suspended Taylor Swift's application. There is a suggestion in the papers that this was at the request of the plaintiff, Maren Flagg. I don't know if that's true or not, but within weeks of the suspension of Taylor Swift's trademark registration, Ms. Flagg filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California, which is the Los Angeles area, in which she alleged trademark infringement of her registered mark in the trademark confessions of a showgirl, as well as a federal cause of action for unfair competition and a California state cause of action for unfair competition.

6:04And a couple of weeks after filing the lawsuit, Ms. Flagg also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Now, a preliminary injunction essentially is a procedure by which a plaintiff in a lawsuit can have something stopped pending the outcome of the lawsuit. It is a very hard thing to get. And for understandable reasons, no decision is made on the merits of the case. And yet you're asking the court to make the defendant stop doing something. So there's a very high bar to obtain a preliminary injunction. Ms. Swift and her business entities responded and opposed that motion for a preliminary injunction, as you expect.

6:44And a hearing was held on May 27, 2026 in front of Judge Murillo in the Central District of California. And that's essentially where we are procedurally. And at the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction last week, Taylor Swift's attorney argued that the life of a showgirl didn't infringe on Flagg's trademark because it was absolutely undisputed that the album is an expressive work entitled to legal protection. So protected by the First Amendment. Is that the basic defense argument? Well, that's one of the many arguments. The defense took the typical shotgun approach, where it threw up every argument under the sun, some of which are stronger than others.

7:26Clearly, at the core of the argument, however, was the notion that the First Amendment protects expressive speech against trademark liability. And this is a doctrine that was first pioneered by the Second Circuit, which is New York and Connecticut, in connection with a movie that used Ginger Rogers' name as part of the title. And that lawsuit was called Rogers v. Grimaldi. And the test that was developed, the doctrine that came out of that became known as the Rogers test. And at its core, it says that you cannot use trademark to restrict expressive speech because of the First Amendment protections.

8:04You and I talked about a case about a year and a half ago in the Supreme Court that adjusted the Rogers test. It was a case involving Jack Daniels versus VIP toys. In that case, the Supreme Court cabined the Rogers Doctrine. In other words, it took a position that Rogers Doctrine has to be narrowly interpreted to apply to the titles of expressive works. In light of that case, a lot of changes have happened in the way we approach trademark law in the context of expressive work, such as Taylor Swift's album. Now, all that said, it seems pretty clear to me that the album's title, Life of a Show Girl, is going to be preserved.

8:44Even in its changed form, the Rogers test will still protect that because it is being used as a title of an expressive work, Taylor Swift's sound recordings. And so I think at the end of the day, that's a win for Taylor Swift. And indeed, it seems as if in her briefs, the plane of Miss Flag concedes that, that the Rogers test applies to the title of the album. The distinction drawn by plaintiff is it should not apply to anything else. And that is a slightly better argument by the plaintiff. Swift's attorney also argued that the plaintiff waited eight months after the album was first announced to ask for an injunction.

9:21And that shows there's no urgency or need for immediate relief. And also that during some of those months, she tried to associate herself with Swift and the Life of a Showgirl album in her messaging. The defense says in one post, the plaintiff used an album cover logo, audio from the album's title track, hashtags including the Life of a Showgirl, Swifties, and Taylor Nation. Is that a problem for the plaintiff? It's probably worthwhile to briefly without giving a law school lecture, explain how you get a preliminary injunction. It's very hard to get it. The party seeking a preliminary injunction has to prove four things.

10:02They have to prove, first and foremost, a likelihood of success on the merits, that at the end of the day, they're going to win and it's not worth the time to wait. Just give me the injunction now. The second thing they have to prove is irreparable harm, that money damages at the end of the process isn't going to be good enough. And the third thing they got to show is is that the balance of hardships tips in their favor. More pain is going to be inflicted, more damage is going to be inflicted on the plaintiff by waiting until the end of the case for an injunction than inflicted upon the defendant by granting the injunction now.

10:35And then the fourth thing you have to show is that a preliminary injunction would be in the public interest. So this is part of what is known in the old English law procedure as equitable jurisdiction. So it's within the equity power of the court. You don't have a jury deciding this. It's decided by the court. If you come into equity seeking some sort of equity remedy, as Miss Flagg has here, you have to do equity. And one of the ways you get undone, one of the ways you aren't doing equity, is to come into equity with unclean hands, is the doctrine that Stone has. And here the defense is making the argument that Miss Flagg has been riding the coattails of Taylor Swift and her phenomenal new album, Life of a Showgirl.

11:16and that constitutes unclean hands. And therefore, on that ground alone, the preliminary injunction has to be denied because it's coming into equity and she's not doing equity. I think it's a real stretch of an argument. I think it is an argument that makes more sense in a jury setting where you can persuade lay people. That's just unfair what's going on here. I don't think that argument in and of itself will go very far. It's like a flavor of the case. So then what do you think is Swift's best argument? I think the strongest argument for the defense here was the one that made that there's no likelihood of success on the merits.

11:52And every circuit court, every court of appeals has a different standard and different name. But here in the Ninth Circuit, it's referred to as the sleek craft factors based on an old Ninth Circuit case. There are eight things you have to show to prove likelihood of confusion. They are questions of fact. Questions of fact have to be decided by a jury, not by a judge. It makes it really, really hard in trying to get a PI in a trademark case to satisfy the likelihood of success in America. Just think about it this way. Are you confused by this notion, confessions of a showgirl versus life of a showgirl, knowing that the one is Taylor Swift?

12:33This is the problem with plaintiffs suing celebrities. Everybody in the world knows Taylor Swift. Come on, let's be honest. And this is the best-selling album of all the great albums and songs she's had. This is the best-selling album so far in her career. And I believe the best-selling album of all time. And it makes it real hard to think in your mind that, oh, this cabaret act being done by Miss Fly is somehow associated with Taylor Swift. It's just very hard to see. But that said, a jury gets to make that decision. And one big part of that is, has anybody really been confused out there? The plaintiff says, oh, yeah, there's all these acts of confusion.

13:13People are hashtagging me into conversations, hashtagging my mark into conversations, vice versa. I don't know that that's actual confusion. So that's why we do expert surveys. We go out and we find the audience for these types of goods and products and entertainment services. And we have the experts do surveys to see if anybody's actually confused. We haven't done that yet. At the end of the day, I think the district court judge is likely to say, I can't on this record find a likelihood of success on the merits because I can't find likely confusion and therefore could deny the preliminary injunction.

13:46That's just my opinion. But, you know, reading the tea leaves of the oral argument at the hearing, it seemed like the judge was disinclined to grant preliminary injunction anyway. Putting the preliminary injunction aside, let's say this goes to trial. Which side has the better case? I think this is one of the more interesting celebrity cases that I've seen come along because both sides have pretty good arguments. And we are living in a post-Jack Daniels world where the Supreme Court has changed the Rogers test and we really don't know the parameters of it. The one thing I'm pretty confident of is that the album will not have to change its name and that the album will not get recalled or selling of the album gets stopped or streaming of the songs gets stopped.

14:31I would bet dollars to donuts on that. And that's not simply because the music's phenomenal and Taylor Swift is who she is. I think as a matter of law and approaching this from a neutral perspective, I think the Rogers test still applies to titles of musical works. And so I think that's the one outcome I'm certain of. However, I'm really uncertain about all the other products that are being sold by Taylor Swift entities that are also using the trademark Life of a Showgirl. I'll give you one example. Apparently, some Taylor Swift entity is selling candles with that name. I don't know why they would choose to sell candles with that name.

15:10I'm not enough of a Swifty, I guess, to understand that. I probably should have consulted one of my daughters. But it is using that mark. And that's not expressive conduct. And therefore, it's not entitled, in my view, to the protection of the Rogers test. Now, the defense argues it's a promotional product to support the album. And I'm really hard pressed to see that. I went online and it looked like these products are just goods being sold to the public. And Taylor Swift's business entities do this all the time. They're constantly selling T-shirts and things of that like. I don't see how this promotes the album.

15:45Maybe I'm missing something. The defense points to another case that came out recently in the same court, Central District of California, a different judge, though, that took the position that promotional products are protected by the Rogers test. And there's not a lot of case law on that out there. I'm not sure that court got it right. But also, I think it's factually different from here where we're selling candles. I mean, if you're selling Taylor Swift T-shirts with that logo on it at a Life of the Showgirl concert, I think you probably got an argument as a promotional product. But I don't know if these candles and other goods are promotional products, one.

16:19And two, the Supreme Court didn't tell us whether or not promotional products are covered by the Rogers test anymore. The other argument that's made by the plaintiff that I think is a very interesting argument is that the fact that Taylor Swift went out and applied for a trademark registration. You only apply for trademark registrations if you intend to label or brand a good or service. And that's exactly what the Supreme Court Jack Daniels said is not protected by the Rogers test. So that might have been a mistake on the part of the Taylor Swift entities, because I think by applying for the trademark, they're sort of conceding that the phrase life of showgirl is going to be used in a business identifier sense.

17:03And the Supreme Court said, sorry, you lose protection when you do that. But these are all issues of first impression because we're in this new world with this new Rogers test post Supreme Court's decision Jack Daniels. And that's what makes this so interesting. I consider it fascinating. And an interesting point that the plaintiff makes in its motion for preliminary injunction is the fact that if the lawyers who applied for Life of a Showgirl registration on behalf of Taylor Swift had done the most cursory trademark search, they would have found her trademark. And that should have given them pause.

17:41Yes. And the paper then goes on to explain that assuming that the lawyers did such a search, that means that Taylor Swift went forward with the application and use of the mark, knowing that there was another mark out there. And therefore, the infringement has to be branded as willful and intentional, which is a bad thing, obviously, especially on the damages side. It is absolutely true that whenever we file for a trademark application, we conduct a search of the existing registered marks at a minimum. In a really important trademark application, as I would consider this to be a really, really important trademark application for Taylor Swift's new album, in addition to searching the trademark registration list, we would search all the 50 states doing business names, incorporation names.

18:31We would do a Google search. It was a really comprehensive search to make sure we weren't getting into trouble and that we were using a viable name and getting registration on a viable name before we launched the business. I can't imagine that didn't happen here. And that makes it even more interesting whether or not the lawyers who did the search and reported back to Taylor Swift gave her some sort of assurance or opinion that she would prevail if challenged. And I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall. that discussion when they came back and told Taylor Swift, I'm sorry, somebody's already got confessions of a showgirl, so we got a problem here.

19:07I mean, that would have been very interesting to see her reaction. But that is ignored completely in the defense opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction, which I also found interesting and very telling, that they want to stay away from any discussion of whether or not they did a search and what the search found and why they went forward with the name anyway. These little subtleties in briefs, it's always interesting to see what the thinking is and what's going on behind the scenes by a few little subtleties in the briefs like that. So Terry, just to clarify one thing, let's say the Rogers test doesn't apply because of the trademark element to it.

19:44I mean, do they then go to a likelihood of confusion test? What's the test after that? Yes, that's exactly right. That means that the central defense, First Amendment defense, is not applicable. And so you engage in ordinary process of determining whether or not trademark infringement has taken place. And that is the likelihood of confusion test. Is the consumer for these goods and services likely to be confused between the two products, the two services, as a result of the two different trademarks being used? And again, that would go to the jury for a decision. I would love to see how the survey of consumers is constructed, because I think that would be complicated.

20:25I'd love to see the results. You may get to. We may well. There's an interesting subtext in the pleadings on the motion for preliminary injunction. One of the requirements is you have to show that the harm is irreparable. And by irreparable, they mean can't be fixed by monetary damages. In arguing that the harm is not irreparable, the defense argued that we can simply pay money to the plaintiff at the end of the day if this is infringing. And I don't know how that was intended, but I read it as an invitation to settlement talks that we'll simply buy the mark from you. And certainly Taylor Swift's in a position to throw money at problems like this.

21:08And I think if the plaintiff loses the preliminary injunction motion, that puts Taylor Swift and the defendants in a much stronger bargaining position. And we might then see a settlement. And we might never get to see a survey. We might never get to see how the jury reacts to any of this. But that's probably for the best for the judicial system. Although for those of us who follow these things, we'd really like to see a judicial decision on some of these issues of first impression. Oh, yeah. Taylor Swift to the courtroom, please. That would be fascinating. That would be a hard ticket to get. almost as hard as her tour.

21:39Don't forget to ask your daughters about those candles, Terry. Thanks so much as always. That's intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m. Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.

22:15When you're running a business, the best days are the ones where priorities stay on track. For midsize and large companies, risk can affect multiple parts of the organization at once, from property and liability to cyber and regulatory challenges. At that level, managing risk becomes an ongoing discipline. At the Hartford, the focus is on helping businesses manage risk before it turns into something more disruptive. And when losses do happen, that work is paired with insurance coverage shaped by years of underwriting, risk engineering, and claims experience. Learn more at thehartford.com slash risk mitigation.

22:50Policies provided by Hartford Fire Insurance Company and its property and casualty affiliates, Hartford, Connecticut. So as a pizza genius, I know pizza shop orders come from, well, everywhere. With Genius by Global Payments, online orders actually sink straight into your kitchen. It's as simple as pie. And with digital menu boards, your specials, your prices, your brand, always front and center. It's one system, ready for game night crowds. Any night of the week, really. Big league reliability for any business. That's Genius. From coast to coast, unlock adventure at Red Lion Hotels by Sonesta, where restful sleep, friendly service, and trusted local knowledge are part of every stay.

23:35Red Lion makes it easy to feel welcomed, comfortable, and connected wherever the road takes you. Whether you're traveling for business or pleasure, you can spend less and make more of every trip. When you sign up for Sonesta Travel Pass, you'll get their best rates instantly. Go to sonesta.com to book your stay and unlock the best rates with Sonesta Travel Pass. Here today, roam tomorrow. Join now at sinesta.com. Terms and conditions apply.