Taylor Swift‘s legal team has filed an opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction that sought to block the pop star’s use of The Life of a Showgirl album title, accusing the plaintiff of trying to “use Taylor Swift’s name and intellectual property to prop up her brand.”
The opposition brief, filed on Wednesday (May 6) in the US District Court for the Central District of California, was submitted on behalf of Swift, TAS Rights Management (TASRM), UMG Recordings, and UMG‘s merch company Bravado International Group Merchandising Services.
A hearing on the injunction motion is scheduled for May 27 in Los Angeles.
The lawsuit was brought 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 Office and has used for a cabaret show, a book, a podcast and video content.
Flagg‘s brand originated as a column for Las Vegas Weekly beginning in 2014.
She then filed a motion for preliminary injunction in April, seeking to immediately bar Swift from all use of The Life of a Showgirl.
In the opposition brief, which you can read in full here, Swift‘s lawyers at Venable LLP argued that the case “should never have been filed,” describing it as “Flagg‘s latest attempt to use Taylor Swift‘s name and intellectual property to prop up her brand.”
According to the court document, Flagg “spent several months centering her brand on The Life of a Showgirl‘s name, artwork, music, and lyrics to promote her little-known cabaret show”.
“In fact, a mere four days after Ms. Swift announced her Album title and artwork in August 2025, Ms. Flagg announced a brand-new podcast mimicking Ms. Swift’s Album artwork, logo, title, and taglines,” the filing states.
Swift‘s lawyers alleged that Flagg flooded her Instagram and TikTok pages with more than 40 ads for her brand using Swift‘s music, trademarks, and other intellectual property without permission.
“Each of these advertisements constitutes actionable infringement, and TASRM will be pursuing appropriate remedies for that intentional, commercial misuse,” according to the filing.
Swift‘s legal team also alleged that Flagg shifted her branding from pinks and yellows to a mint backdrop with an elongated font and other features that, according to the filing, “clearly [evoke] the imagery of the album and its related promotional materials.”
The opposition argues that the album title is protected under the First Amendment, citing the Rogers v. Grimaldi test used by the Ninth Circuit.
Under that test, a plaintiff cannot establish infringement of a trademark used in the title of an expressive work unless the title is either not artistically relevant to the underlying work, or explicitly misleads as to its source.
The defendants’ brief pointed to a ruling from a sister court in the same district in December 2025, in which a judge denied a preliminary injunction sought by a surfboard company against Lady Gaga over the use of “Mayhem” as the title of her album and on related goods.
That case – Lost International, LLC v. Germanotta – found that an album title and its associated promotional merchandise are expressive works protected by Rogers, the brief noted.
“This holding is on all fours with the Album and associated goods at issue here,” Swift‘s lawyers wrote.
According to the filing, Swift said the inspiration for the album’s title came from her experience performing during The Eras Tour, describing it as “literally living the life of a showgirl.”
“It is readily apparent that the Album is associated with Ms. Swift, as it depicts her instantly recognizable name and/or likeness on the Album and all related marketing and promotional materials,” the filing states.
On the question of consumer confusion, Swift‘s legal team drew a contrast between the scale of the two parties’ operations.
The filing noted that Flagg “performs, if at all, in small intimate venues, such as a: ’55+ active community’; ’55+ golf resort’; ‘RV & Golf Resort’; ’90 seat cabaret-style venue’ that offers dinner; hotel; and private supper club.”
By contrast, The Life of a Showgirl shattered US sales records upon its release in October, selling over 4 million units and generating nearly 681 million streams in its first week in the US alone, according to the filing.
The album was the highest-selling album of 2025, with over 6 million units sold that year, the filing states.
Swift was subsequently named IFPI’s biggest-selling recording artist globally for the year, marking her sixth time winning the award.
Flagg’s 12 examples of alleged consumer confusion – consisting of anonymous social media posts and comments – amounted to no more than “isolated unauthenticated web postings,” the defendants argued, citing case law holding that “a handful of examples of anecdotal confusion are insufficient to support a finding [of] confusion.”
The defendants also argued that Flagg‘s eight-month delay in seeking relief (she acknowledged knowing about the album in August 2025 but did not file her motion until April 2026) undermined her claim of irreparable harm.
If an injunction were to be granted, Swift‘s lawyers argued, it would require the removal of all album and album-related products from the physical and digital marketplace, the cancellation of sales, the destruction of goods, and would result in losses likely totaling “in the tens of millions of dollars.”
The defendants also filed a proposed order alongside their opposition brief, asking the court to deny the injunction.
Flagg‘s attorney, Jaymie Parkkinen, responded in a statement to Billboard: “We read it. Defendants assert First Amendment protection for napkins and hairbrushes. We look forward to filing our response next week.”Music Business Worldwide
