Let's face it: when Taylor Swift names an album, the phrase belongs to the culture by lunchtime. That's exactly the problem in Flagg v. Swift.
Maren Flagg performs as Maren Wade. She has spent more than a decade building a brand called "Confessions of a Showgirl," from a Las Vegas Weekly column to a live show and a book. She owns U.S. Registration No. 4800625 for CONFESSIONS OF A SHOWGIRL for entertainment services, which her complaint says is incontestable under 15 U.S.C. §1065. In March, she sued Swift, her rights company, UMG and Bravado in federal court in Los Angeles over The Life of a Showgirl.
Swift's side calls the suit "meritless" and "nonsensical." The interesting part is why each side thinks it wins.
Takeaway #1: Is an album title a trademark?
FROM THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
"One does not register expression. One registers a trademark."
What it means for you. Swift's motion to dismiss leads with Rogers v. Grimaldi. Under that test, the title of an expressive work, like an album, gets First Amendment protection from trademark claims unless the title has no artistic relevance or is explicitly misleading about its source. Swift's lawyers argue the album is a "quintessential expressive work" and the merch is "a logical extension" of it.
But the Supreme Court's 2023 Jack Daniel's decision says Rogers doesn't apply when the defendant uses the other side's mark as a designation of source for its own goods. Flagg's theory is that Swift did exactly that, and her proof is paperwork. Swift's rights company applied to register THE LIFE OF A SHOWGIRL across fourteen classes, from recordings to candles and shoe laces. Her complaint's line above is the whole argument in nine words.
Swift's answer: the application was filed on an intent-to-use basis, with no claim of current use and no specimen, and it says nothing about how consumers see the album in the marketplace.
Your move. If you file to register an album or tour title, assume it will be read as an admission that you're using it as a brand. Clear the name first, the same way you'd clear a product name. And in your label or merch deal, decide in writing who runs that clearance and who indemnifies whom if an approved title draws a claim.
Takeaway #2: When the USPTO agrees with the little guy
FROM THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
"On November 5, 2025, the USPTO issued a nonfinal Office Action refusing registration as to International Classes 9 and 41 of THE LIFE OF A SHOWGIRL under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), based on a likelihood of confusion with Plaintiff's federally registered CONFESSIONS OF A SHOWGIRL mark."
What it means for you. Section 2(d) is the USPTO's bar on registering a mark likely to be confused with one already registered. Per the complaint, the examining attorney said Swift's title "could be viewed as an extension of" Flagg's brand. Swift's side argued in June that the action was nonfinal and covered only two of the fourteen classes, and that the application was suspended.
Then, on September 22, 2026, the USPTO issued another nonfinal Office Action. It keeps the Flagg-based refusal and adds one for five more classes, including candles, jewelry and clothing, based on someone else's SHOWGIRL registration for perfume. Flagg tried to file it with the court without permission, and the judge struck both sides' filings. But Judge Serena Murillo also asked for five-page supplemental briefs on how that action affects the motion to dismiss, and moved the hearing to December 9.
Flagg calls this "textbook reverse confusion." Ordinary confusion is a small brand trading on a big one. Reverse confusion is the opposite: a junior user so big that consumers start to think the senior user is the copycat. Swift's lawyers say the idea that anyone thinks Swift is behind Flagg's shows is "nonsensical." The devil is in the details, and a court has yet to decide any of them.
Your move. Small brands, register your mark and keep using it, with dated proof. An incontestable registration is the reason Flagg has a case to argue at all.
Sample wording (our illustration): "Label shall conduct a full trademark clearance search for each album, single and tour title before announcement and share the results with Artist."
And always remember, don't sign it till you read it, my friends.
General information, not legal advice. Reading this doesn't create an attorney-client relationship. Talk to your own trademark lawyer before you file or fight.
Sources
- First Amended Complaint, Flagg v. Swift et al., No. 2:26-cv-03354-SRM-BFM (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 50, filed June 16, 2026
- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 57, filed June 30, 2026
- Civil Minutes, Order Requesting Supplemental Briefing and Continuing Hearing, Dkt. 67, Sept 30, 2026 (via CourtListener)
- Rolling Stone, 'Taylor Swift's Life of a Showgirl Trademark Fight Escalates as Lawyers Call Lawsuit Nonsensical', Sept 23, 2026
