This week’s BL Business Branding Newsletter takes a look at the bad blood brewing between Taylor Swift and Las Vegas performer Maren Flagg over the phrase “The Life of a Showgirl.” What began as a branding disagreement has evolved into a more formal legal battle, with Flagg requesting a federal court temporarily block the sale of merchandise associated with Swift’s most recent album.
According to the complaint filed in March, Flagg has spent more than a decade building her brand, “Confessions of a Showgirl.” The concept originated as a column in 2014 and later expanded into a podcast and live cabaret performances, leading to a federally registered trademark in 2015.
Flagg now argues that Swift’s use of “The Life of a Showgirl” on her latest album is a bit too close for comfort. The phrasing, structure, and overall impression, she claims, are similar enough to create confusion, particularly given that both operate within overlapping entertainment and media spaces.
The situation is further complicated by developments at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Swift’s application to register her “showgirl” phrase was reportedly refused due to concerns it was too similar to Flagg’s existing mark. Despite that setback, the lawsuit alleges Swift still used the phrase commercially in her album rollout and related merchandise, without any modification or direct coordination with Flagg.
At the center of Flagg’s argument is the concept of reverse confusion. Rather than suggesting that a larger brand is copying a smaller one, reverse confusion focuses on what happens when a bigger brand overshadows an existing mark. In those situations, consumers may assume the smaller brand is affiliated with, or even infringing upon, the larger, more visible entity.
Flagg believes that Swift’s global reach and extensive merchandising efforts are already beginning to dilute her brand’s identity. She points to search engine results that increasingly favor Swift-related content, as well as the expansion of “showgirl”-themed merchandise tied to Swift’s current era. According to Flagg, this growing presence not only affects her visibility but also weakens the association between her and the brand she established over 10 years ago. As a result, Flagg is seeking to halt further use of the phrase, stop related merchandise sales, and recover damages. A hearing is scheduled for May 27 in federal court in Los Angeles.
What Can Businesses Learn From This?
Protecting your trademark rights never goes out of style. Registration is only the first step; ongoing monitoring and enforcement are just as critical to maintaining a strong brand presence. Resources like the United States Patent and Trademark Office database allow businesses to review prior filings, refusals, and existing registrations. These can help identify potential conflicts early and provide valuable support when asserting or defending trademark rights.
In this case, the reported refusal of Swift’s trademark application could play major a role in supporting Flagg’s claims, demonstrating that the USPTO had already identified a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. Leveraging that kind of historical trademark data can strengthen legal arguments, whether a business is opposing an application or enforcing its own rights.
Have questions about how to protect and elevate your company’s brand? Contact our BL Trademark Team by reaching out to Seth Berenzweig at sberenzweig@berenzweiglaw.com.