Taylor Swift’s attorneys have fired back over allegations that her 2025 album The Life of a Showgirl infringed on a former Las Vegas showgirl’s brand.
In March, former showgirl Maren Flagg — known professionally as Maren Wade — sued Swift, 36, in a California District Court, claiming that The Life of a Showgirl interfered with her brand “Confessions of a Showgirl,” which she trademarked in 2015 to market podcasts, live shows and books. Flagg insisted in her lawsuit that the two titles “share the same structure, the same dominant phrase, and the same overall commercial impression,” per Variety.
“Both are used in overlapping markets and are directed at the same consumers,” Flagg argued in her petition.
Flagg asked the court to block Swift from continuing to market The Life of a Showgirl for albums, live shows, merchandise and more until the legal dispute was resolved.
“Each additional sale compounds the confusion in the marketplace and further erodes [Flagg’s] ability to be recognized as the [sole] source of her ‘Confessions of a Showgirl’ brand,” she contended.
Earlier this week, Swift’s lawyers filed court documents describing Flagg’s infringement claim as “absurd” and denying that there was any brand confusion.
“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,” Swift’s lawyers insisted. “Plaintiff attempts to broadly lump her cabaret show and defendants’ musical album together as ‘entertainment services.’ That comparison is absurd.”
Swift’s legal team argued that there was no similarity between Swift’s record-breaking Eras Tour stadium shows and the “small intimate venues” where Flagg has traditionally performed. (Swift’s lawyers’ list a “90 seat cabaret-style venue” and a “RV & Golf Resort” as event spaces where Flagg has performed.)
“Her website lists no upcoming performances,” they pointed out.
Elsewhere in their motion, Swift’s attorneys questioned why Flagg pursued legal action eight months after the announcement of The Life of a Showgirl.
“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,” Swift’s brief read. “Prior to the album announcement, plaintiff had never used ‘the life of a showgirl’ in her social media promotion. Following the announcement, plaintiff used the phrase or posted generally about Ms. Swift or the album over 40 times on her branded Instagram and TikTok accounts.”
As the infringement case continues, Swift’s lawyers suggested they may seek legal action against Flagg for her use of the singer-songwriter’s artistic work in her social media content.
“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,” they argued. “In fact, a mere four days after Ms. Swift announced her album title and artwork in August 2025, Ms. Flagg announced a brand-new podcast mimicking Ms. Swift’s Album artwork, logo, title, and taglines. Then, [Flagg] flooded her Instagram and TikTok pages with 40+ advertisements for her brand using Ms. Swift’s music, trademarks, and other intellectual property without permission.”
Swift’s lawyers proposed a protective order on Wednesday, May 6, in hopes that the judge would agree with their legal arguments. (This proposed order has not been signed by a judge, as of publication.)
In that proposed protective order, which was obtained by Us Weekly, Swift’s lawyers contended that Flagg failed to show that “she is likely to succeed on the merits of her claims” or is “likely to suffer irreparable harm” due to The Life of a Showgirl’s release. They alleged that Flagg also could not prove that “the balance of equities tips in her favor” or that “an injunction is in the public interest.”
“[Flagg’s] conduct — repeatedly attempting to associate herself with Defendant Swift and the Album— bars her from the preliminary injunctive relief she seeks,” Swift’s attorneys wrote in their proposed protective order.
Their argument for seeking a protective order is partially rooted in the First Amendment, which grants protections for creative works unless they are “not artistically relevant to the underlying work” or “mislead[ing] as to the source of content of the work.”
“Because The Life of a Showgirl Album and related promotional goods are expressive works, they are protected by the First Amendment … and [Flagg] cannot succeed on her trademark claims,” Swift’s lawyers alleged.
Swift’s lawyers argued that Flagg’s “cabaret shows are entirely distinct from where Defendants sell the Album and promotional merchandise, and from where Ms. Swift has historically performed.”
As for Flagg’s claim that she’d suffered any “irreparable harm” with the release of The Life of a Showgirl, Team Swift noted that “any harm that [Flagg] claims here can be addressed through the recovery of money damages, and it is thus not irreparable.”
“[Flagg] has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion or irreparable harm,” their prospective protective order petition read. “Further, [Swift’s lawyers] have provided evidence supporting that an injunction would cause significant financial harm, to themselves and numerous third parties, while [Flagg] to take any action to stop the growth of the Album for eight months.”
Attorneys for both parties submitted a separate motion on Monday, May 4, asking for evidence gathered in the case to be protected from “public disclosure.” This protective order was granted by U.S. Magistrate Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff on Tuesday, May 5.
Us Weekly has reached out to Flagg and Swift for comment.
Prior to this week’s ruling, Flagg’s lawyer told Rolling Stone that the cabaret performer had a valid reason for pursuing the lawsuit.
“[She] spent more than a decade building Confessions of a Showgirl. She registered it. She earned it. When Taylor Swift’s team applied to register ‘The Life of a Showgirl,’ the Trademark Office refused,” her attorney said. “We have great respect for Swift’s talent and success, but trademark law exists to ensure that creators at all levels can protect what they’ve built. That’s what this case is about.”
The Life of a Showgirl spent 12 nonconsecutive weeks at the top of the Billboard 200 album chart following its release in October 2025. Swift’s 12th studio album has gone platinum five times and has spawned special collector edition releases.
