A USPTO examiner's preliminary refusal has become a contested exhibit in the trademark lawsuit over Taylor Swift's album title. The court postponed the hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss and ordered briefing on the examiner's latest action.

Maren Wade (Maren Flagg in court filings) sued Swift, TAS Rights Management, UMG Recordings, and Bravado in the Central District of California in March. Wade alleges "The Life of a Showgirl" infringes her registered mark "Confessions of a Showgirl." Wade says she has used the mark since 2014.

TAS Rights Management, Swift's rights company, applied to register the album title with the USPTO in 14 classes of goods and services in a trademark application. In November 2025, an examiner issued an initial refusal to register the title for sound recordings and live performances, citing likelihood of confusion with Wade's registration. A second USPTO action kept the refusal in place and refused five more classes based on another third party's registration.

Three Questions Before the Court

  • Reverse confusion. In a reverse confusion claim, consumers dealing with the earlier mark's owner believe they are dealing with a larger entity using the mark later. Wade argues Swift's larger commercial presence has that effect. The Ninth Circuit held in Ironhawk v. Dropbox (2021) that the larger user's own brand name, shown beside the disputed mark, can increase reverse confusion.
  • The expressive-work defense. The defendants rely on the Rogers test, a rule that a trademark claim against an artistic work fails unless the use has no artistic relevance or explicitly misleads consumers. The Supreme Court held in Jack Daniel's (2023) that Rogers does not apply when a defendant uses the mark as a brand for its own goods, and the Ninth Circuit in Punchbowl (2024) treated the defendant's own trademark applications as evidence of brand use. Wade cites TAS's application, covering the album, live performances, and merchandise, as the defendants' own admission that the title works as a brand. The defendants cite a 2025 California decision, now on appeal, applying Rogers to an album title and its merchandise.
  • The weight of an examiner's view. The defendants argue the examiner's action deserves no weight because the USPTO and the courts apply different tests, citing Ninth Circuit authority that treats USPTO determinations as inconclusive.

As of now, no ruling on the motion to dismiss has been reported.

Taylor's dispute shows applying to register an artistic title as a trademark creates evidence an opponent can use. An examiner's refusal can support an argument of likely confusion, and the application itself can show the title functioning as a brand, the threshold question for whether the expressive-work defense applies.

Sources

  1. Coverage: Camila Curcio, Law Commentary (Sept. 25, 2026), https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/taylor-swift-life-of-a-showgirl-trademark-lawsuit-uspto-confusion
  2. Docket: 𝘍𝘭𝘢𝘨𝘨 𝘷. 𝘚𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘵, No. 2:26-cv-03354 (C.D. Cal.), https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73110473/maren-flagg-v-taylor-swift/
  3. USPTO application: Serial No. 99331566, THE LIFE OF A SHOWGIRL (TAS Rights Management, LLC)
  4. Decisions: 𝘑𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘐𝘯𝘤. 𝘷. 𝘝𝘐𝘗 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘓𝘓𝘊, 599 U.S. 140 (2023); 𝘗𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘣𝘰𝘸𝘭, 𝘐𝘯𝘤. 𝘷. 𝘈𝘑 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘓𝘓𝘊, 90 F.4th 1022 (9th Cir. 2024); 𝘐𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘩𝘢𝘸𝘬 𝘛𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘐𝘯𝘤. 𝘷. 𝘋𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘣𝘰𝘹, 𝘐𝘯𝘤., 2 F.4th 1150 (9th Cir. 2021); 𝘓𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭, 𝘓𝘓𝘊 𝘷. 𝘎𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘢, No. 8:25-cv-00592 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2025) (denying preliminary injunction), appeal pending, No. 26-6129 (9th Cir.)