Taylor Swift’s Team Calls Showgirl Trademark Suit ‘Absurd’ as First Court Filing Pushes Back

Taylor Swift’s lawyers delivered a sharp rebuttal on May 6, calling a trademark challenge to her No. 1 album The Life of a Showgirl “absurd” and arguing the lawsuit is “meritless” — while also insisting the plaintiff actually tried to hitch her publicity to Swift’s release.

Taylor Swift accepted the Pop Album of the Year award onstage at the 2026 iHeartRadio Music Awards at Dolby Theatre on March 26, 2026, in Los Angeles, California. Kevin Winter/Getty Images for iHeartRadio.

The response, filed by Venable LLP on Wednesday, is the first substantive move by Swift’s legal team in the dispute brought by Las Vegas performer Maren Wade, who performs under her birth name Maren Flagg. Flagg runs a cabaret act called “Confessions of a Showgirl” and asked a federal judge for an immediate injunction to stop Swift from selling merch tied to The Life of a Showgirl while the litigation plays out.

Swift’s lawyers frame the injunction request as both legally unfounded and commercially reckless, telling the court that an order to halt merchandise sales would inflict “tens of millions of dollars” in lost revenue. They also characterize Flagg as having attempted to use Swift’s release to amplify her own visibility: the filing points to more than 40 Instagram and TikTok posts by Flagg that use Swift’s music and hashtags like #thelifeofashowgirl, #TS12, #taylorswift and #swifties.

“Far from showing any concern about the album after its announcement, Ms. Flagg spent several months centering her brand on The Life of a Showgirl’s name, artwork, music and lyrics to promote her little-known cabaret show,” the filing reads, adding that when those efforts failed to garner attention, “she concocted a meritless lawsuit.”

That accusation is matched by a threat: Swift’s lawyers say they “will be pursuing appropriate remedies for that intentional, commercial misuse.” The posture resembles Swift’s response to a 2021 trademark dust-up with Utah’s Evermore Park, where Swift countersued a theme park for playing her music without proper licenses; both that matter and its related claims were eventually dropped with no money exchanged.

Legally, the filing leans on two fronts. First, Swift’s team argues the contested merchandise is tied to core First Amendment-protected expression, citing a recent decision that allowed Lady Gaga to continue selling Mayhem album merch while a separate trademark dispute continued last year. Second, they insist that confusion is not remotely plausible — a line of argument aimed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Offices initial finding that there might be a likelihood of confusion between the marks.

“It is widely known that Ms. Swift’s fanbase is a dedicated and informed set of consumers,” the filing argues. “Their attention to detail is legendary when it comes to information about Ms. Swift’s albums or merchandise… There is no chance they would be confused between plaintiff’s cabaret shows and Ms. Swift’s album and related promotional merchandise.”

The papers also get granular about branding: Swift’s lawyers point out differences in “dominant terms, fonts, color schemes, spacing and meanings,” and deride suggestions that a cabaret show named “Confessions of a Showgirl” could be equated with Swift’s stadium-level enterprise. “[Swift’s] performances are musical concerts at sold-out stadiums with thousands of attendees, not at golf resorts or cabaret-style venues,” the filing says.

On the trademark front, the team stresses that the USPTOs nonfinal office action rejecting The Life of a Showgirl application is not dispositive. “That prior nonfinal office action is exactly what it sounds like, not final (and not uncommon),” the filing states, adding confidence that Swift will prevail in the registration process.

Flagg’s lawyers now have an opportunity to respond in writing, and a federal judge is scheduled to hear the injunction request on May 27 in Los Angeles. On Thursday, May 7, Flaggs attorney Jaymie Parkkinen pushed back in a brief statement: “We read it. Defendants assert First Amendment protection for napkins and hairbrushes. We look forward to filing our response next week.”

The dispute lands at the intersection of celebrity commerce and trademark law, testing how courts weigh expressive rights tied to music releases against prior, smaller-scale uses of overlapping phrasing. For now, both sides are laying out familiar litigation strategies: Swift invoking artistic expression and fan sophistication, and Flagg pressing for immediate relief to protect a branded live act.