Maren Flagg vs Taylor Swift: Swift’s lawyers call ‘Showgirl’ trademark lawsuit ‘absurd’

Show summary Hide summary

• 🔥 Quick Facts
• Swift’s Legal Team Blasts Vegas Performer’s Infringement Claims
• Maren Flagg Trademarked ‘Confessions of a Showgirl’ Back in 2015
• Critical Details in the Legal Battle Over ‘The Life of a Showgirl’
• Swift’s Lawyers Accuse Flagg of Using Swift’s Intellectual Property for Promotion
• First Amendment and Similar ‘Showgirl’ Titles May Give Swift the Edge
  • Sources

Taylor Swift just fired back hard at Las Vegas performer Maren Flagg over a trademark lawsuit. Swift’s lawyers called the infringement claims “absurd” and “meritless” on Wednesday, setting up a major legal battle over her hit album “The Life of a Showgirl.”

Swift’s Legal Team Blasts Vegas Performer’s Infringement Claims

Taylor Swift’s attorneys at Venable LLP filed a scathing response on Wednesday, May 7, calling the lawsuit “meritless.” The brief argues there is absolutely no chance consumers would confuse Flagg’s cabaret performances with Swift’s global music brand. Swift’s lawyers emphasized that fans are known for detecting minute details in her work, from “easter eggs” to numerology codes, making confusion between the two brands impossible.

“When Taylor Swift’s fanbase is a dedicated and informed set of consumers,” the filing states, “there is no chance they would be confused between plaintiff’s cabaret shows and Ms. Swift’s album.” The response also highlighted the dramatic scale difference between Swift’s Eras Tour, which sells out massive stadiums, and Flagg’s performances at 55+ golf resorts and 90-seat cabaret venues.

Maren Flagg Trademarked ‘Confessions of a Showgirl’ Back in 2015

Maren Flagg, who performs as Maren Wade, obtained her trademark for “Confessions of a Showgirl” in 2015. She has used the phrase for a newspaper column, podcast, and Las Vegas cabaret performances. In her March 2026 lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in California, Flagg claimed that Swift’s album title shares “the same structure,” “the same dominant phrase,” and “the same overall commercial impression” with her trademark.

Flagg requested an immediate preliminary injunction to bar Swift from selling album merchandise while the case continues. However, Swift’s team argues this would cost tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue. Flagg’s attorney, Jaymie Parkkinen, stated in early April that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initially refused to register Swift’s mark due to confusion concerns with his client’s existing trademark.

Critical Details in the Legal Battle Over ‘The Life of a Showgirl’

According to Swift’s court filing, the two brands are distinctly different across multiple factors. The trademarks have different dominant terms, different fonts, different color schemes, different spacing, and different meanings. Swift’s lawyers argue that it is “absurd” to compare Flagg’s cabaret show to Swift’s stadium concerts. The brief states that Flagg’s website lists no upcoming performances, while Swift performs for thousands of attendees nightly.

Factor	Flagg’s Mark	Swift’s Album
Mark Registered	Confessions of a Showgirl (2015)	The Life of a Showgirl (2025)
Venues	55+ golf resorts, 90-seat cabarets	Sold-out stadiums with thousands
Format	Cabaret performances, podcast, column	Global music album and merchandise
Legal Status	Registered trademark	Pending registration (initial rejection)

“This motion, just like Maren Flagg’s lawsuit, should never have been filed. It is simply Ms. Flagg’s latest attempt to use Taylor Swift’s name and intellectual property to prop up her brand.”

— Taylor Swift’s Legal Team, Response Brief Filed May 7, 2026

Swift’s Lawyers Accuse Flagg of Using Swift’s Intellectual Property for Promotion

Swift’s attorneys made a bombshell allegation in their response: that Maren Flagg herself has been the real infringer. The filing states that Flagg “spent several months centering her brand” on “The Life of a Showgirl” by posting over 40 times on Instagram and TikTok using Swift’s music, album artwork, and hashtags like #thelifeofashowgirl, #TS12, and #swifties.

The brief alleges that just four days after Swift announced the album title in August 2025, Flagg launched a brand-new podcast that mimicked Swift’s album artwork, logo, title, and taglines. Swift’s team argues that Flagg essentially attempted to ride the coattails” of Swift’s marketing success and is now suing because that strategy failed to generate interest. The response notes that “consumers were not confused into believing these two brands were even remotely connected,” which prompted Flagg to file the lawsuit instead.

First Amendment and Similar ‘Showgirl’ Titles May Give Swift the Edge

Swift’s legal team argues that the album title receives First Amendment protection as an expressive work. They cite Rogers v. Grimaldi and the Lady Gaga “Mayhem” case as precedent, showing that song titles and album titles are core forms of protected speech. Under this doctrine, a trademark owner cannot block a work unless it is either “not artistically relevant” to the work or “explicitly misleads” consumers about the source.

Swift’s lawyers also pointed out that numerous other works with similar “Showgirl” titles have existed since Flagg obtained her 2015 trademark, including “Confessions of a Goddess,” “Confessions of a Vegas Showgirl,” “Portrait of a Showgirl,” and “The Last Showgirl.” None of these sparked infringement lawsuits, suggesting the phrase is generic in the entertainment industry. The federal judge handling the case will hear Flagg’s injunction request on May 27, 2026 to decide whether Swift can continue selling merchandise while the lawsuit continues.

Sources

• Variety – Taylor Swift’s Attorneys Fire Back in Trademark Lawsuit, May 7, 2026
• Billboard – Taylor Swift Fights ‘The Life of a Showgirl’ Trademark Lawsuit, May 7, 2026
• USA Today – Taylor Swift’s Lawyers Slam ‘Showgirl’ Lawsuit, May 7, 2026