Taylor Swift's blistering put-down of Las Vegas showgirl embroiled in 'non-sensical' lawsuit... as trademark infringement legal fight rages on

Taylor Swift's lawyers have delivered an extraordinary put-down of the former Las Vegas showgirl who is suing her for trademark infringement - questioning how anyone could possibly confuse the global pop star with someone operating in the world of golf resorts and RV parks. 

In a new court filing submitted on Wednesday, Swift's attorneys argued that Maren Flagg's 'non-sensical' legal fight over the title of the Grammy winner's latest album - The Life Of A Showgirl - was fundamentally flawed.

But they went one step further, too, by mocking the suggestion that people could possibly believe the superstar was in any way linked to Flagg's own entertainment ventures - including her podcast, book or live cabaret performances.

Flagg filed the lawsuit against Swift, TAS Rights Management, Universal Music Group and merchandise company Bravado earlier this year, arguing that the title of the 2025 album was confusingly similar to her own 'Confessions of a Showgirl' trademark.

So far, Swift's lawyers have been scathing in their legal responses.  

The latest filing highlighted her status as a ‘14-time Grammy Award winner and global musical icon’ and blasted the idea that people could believe Swift was the source of, or associated with, Flagg's businesses.

The comments appear in a 16-page reply filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California as Swift's team, yet again, ask for the case to be thrown out.

They argue that The Life of a Showgirl is an expressive artistic work and that the album title is directly connected to Swift's music – including a song of the same name and lyrics throughout the record.

They also point out that Swift's name and branding are ‘pervasive’ across the album and its promotional merchandise, which they say makes it clear who is behind it.

Now, in a bid to boost the argument, Swift's legal team has brought Lady Gaga into the fight.

The filings point to a remarkably similar trademark battle involving Gaga, whose real name is Stefani Germanotta, as recent precedent for why Flagg's lawsuit should fail.

In that case, California surf and lifestyle company Lost International sued Gaga over her use of Mayhem – the title of her 2025 album and tour and a name used on her merchandise.

Lost had alleged it had long-standing trademark rights to ‘Mayhem’ for clothing and other products.

But a California federal judge dismissed the case in August, ruling that the company's allegations did not sufficiently show that Gaga had explicitly misled consumers about the source of her work. The case was dismissed with prejudice.

Swift's lawyers argue in the latest filing that the decision is ‘virtually identical’ to the fight now before their judge.

They argue that the Gaga case confirms that an album title and related merchandise can be protected as an expressive work unless a plaintiff can show the artist explicitly misled consumers.

Swift's legal team say Flagg has failed to do that and take aim at her suggestion that the word ‘showgirl’ is the dominant part of the two marks.

Lawyers for Flagg, however, have pointed to the US Patent and Trademark Office's own examination of Swift's trademark application, saying it reached the opposite conclusion. 

In Flagg's filing, her lawyers noted that USPTO had found consumers were likely to focus on the word showgirl as the 'dominant noun' - claiming it ‘contributes more to the commercial impression of the marks.’

Swift's side, however, argue the first words on each opposing side – ‘The Life’ and ‘Confessions’ – are different, which undermine Flagg's argument that consumers would focus on the shared word ‘showgirl.’

The singer's lawyers also point to a string of other entertainment titles using similar language, arguing that the phrases ‘CONFESSIONS OF A,’ ‘OF A SHOWGIRL’ and ‘SHOWGIRL’ already exist in the public domain.

A separate filing also asked the judge to take judicial notice of IMDb and Amazon materials showing other parties' uses of the phrases in the entertainment field.

Flagg's lawyers have pushed back on that evidence, arguing that the more than 100 pages of IMDb and Amazon listings are being used to establish that other titles ‘co-exist in the marketplace’ with her trademark – something they say is a disputed factual question that should not be resolved at this stage of the case.

Swift's lawyers also argue that Flagg has not shown she sells music albums or performs live in connection with any album, further separating the two businesses.

Meanwhile, the dispute has also produced a glimpse into where Swift's lawyers say her business is actually based — claiming there is no remaining dispute that Swift is domiciled in Tennessee, not California, while TAS Rights Management is also a Tennessee company.

Swift's team is using that fact to argue that the California court does not have specific jurisdiction over either the singer or TAS Rights Management as another reason why the case should be dismissed.

Flagg's lawyers have disputed the attempt to establish Swift's current domicile through a six-year-old court filing from another case, arguing that the old filing cannot by itself establish where she lives today.

Swift's lawyers also reject Flagg's attempts to use the singer's appearances in California – including the iHeartRadio Music Awards – as evidence that she was conducting business there in connection with the trademark dispute.

The pop star's legal team say she attended the awards to accept honors, including Artist of the Year, and that her speech contained no commercial statements. They describe Flagg's attempt to characterize the appearance as advertising as ‘ridiculous.’

The filing concludes with Swift's legal team asking for the case to be dismissed with prejudice, meaning Flagg would be barred from bringing the same claims again.

The court has scheduled a hearing on the motion for October 7.

Swift’s filing in the ongoing dispute landed less than 24 hours after the superstar announced a surprise follow-up to The Life of a Showgirl.

Her expanded edition, The Life of a Showgirl: The Encore, will feature four new songs, including Patient Zero, which Swift announced just a day earlier. The new tracks are set to arrive Friday.

Flagg - who goes by the stage name Maren Wade - filed the lawsuit in federal court back in March.

Her attorney, Jaymie Parkkinen, previously told the Daily Mail that she had 'spent more than a decade building' her brand: Confessions of a Showgirl.

Flagg has asked to be awarded damages and to prevent Swift from marketing her 2025 album under The Life Of A Showgirl title.

Amid the ongoing fight, Flagg's lawyers accused Swift's team of flooding the court with more than 400 pages of exhibits in an attempt to undermine her complaint before the case has even reached discovery.

The material includes 31 exhibits ranging from dictionary definitions and trademark-office records to screenshots of Swift's own webstore, IMDb and Amazon listings, news articles and 34 pages of posts from X.

Flagg's team argues in its filing that Swift's lawyers are trying to use those materials to resolve disputed factual questions prematurely.

They argued that Swift's team was seeking judgment on its own evidence before Flagg had even taken a deposition or served a single discovery request.

Swift's legal team additionally argued in prior filings that Flagg's lawsuit wasn't filed until eight months after the singer released The Life Of A Showgirl.

They also said in the opposition that Flagg had used Swift's album and songs to promote her own cabaret show on social media before filing the lawsuit.

'Since the album announcement, plaintiff has reframed her brand around the album, flooding her social media accounts with posts attempting to align herself with Ms. Swift and the album,' the May filings read.

Those documents added, 'Prior to the album announcement, plaintiff had never used ‘the life of a showgirl’ in her social media promotion.'

But after the singer's album announcement, the star's legal team said in the May filing that Flagg 'used the phrase or posted generally about Ms. Swift or the album over 40 times on her branded Instagram and TikTok accounts.'

They said then that Flagg had used The Life Of A Showgirl 'to promote her little-known cabaret show' and announced a new podcast just days after Swift announced her album in August 2025.

Flagg used Swift's music and other intellectual property 'without permission' to promote her own brand, the singer's side also argued in the earlier filing.

They added that the promotion 'constitutes actionable infringement' and 'will be pursuing appropriate remedies for that intentional, commercial misuse.'

The Grammy winner's album title is also protected by the First Amendment, her legal team said in the May filing. They also pointed to other similar names, including Confessions Of A Vegas Showgirl and The Last Showgirl.

Flagg's lawyer Jaymie Parkkinen told the Daily Mail in a statement that her team is looking forward to their October 7 hearing.

‘The escalating rhetoric from Ms. Swift's camp is unfortunate, but it does not change the law or the record,’ he stated.

He added that Swift's filing failed to mention that the 'USPTO maintained its refusal to register THE LIFE OF A SHOWGIRL for recordings and live entertainment services because of a likelihood of confusion with Ms. Wade's federally registered, incontestable trademark' on September 22.

'It notes that Defendants had "not presented any arguments in favor of withdrawing this refusal" - and refused registration in five additional classes over a separate owner's mark,' he added.

The Daily Mail has contacted Swift's team.