Taylor Swift’s attorneys filed a brief on Wednesday in maren flagg vs taylor swift, rejecting Maren Flagg’s trademark lawsuit over The Life of a Showgirl. They told the court the case should never have been filed and argued there is little chance consumers would confuse Swift’s work with Flagg’s entertainment brand.
Swift’s lawyers wrote, “This motion, just like Maren Flagg’s lawsuit, should never have been filed.” They also wrote, “It is simply Ms. Flagg’s latest attempt to use Taylor Swift’s name and intellectual property to prop up her brand…” and added, “That comparison is absurd.”
Flagg’s March filing
Flagg filed her lawsuit in United States District Court in California in late March and asked for a preliminary injunction that would immediately bar Swift from further use of the Life of a Showgirl brand. Her lawsuit said she trademarked Confessions of a Showgirl in 2015 and has used it for a newspaper column, podcast and cabaret performances.
In her complaint, Flagg said Swift’s album title infringes on her trademark because the two titles “share the same structure, the same dominant phrase, and the same overall commercial impression.” She also said the titles are used in overlapping markets and are directed at the same consumers.
Swift’s venue contrast
Swift’s team pushed back by contrasting Swift’s top-grossing stadium tour with Flagg’s cabaret appearances. The lawyers said Flagg performs, if at all, in small intimate venues such as a 55+ active community, a 55+ golf resort, an RV and golf resort, a 90-seat cabaret-style venue that offers dinner, a hotel and a private supper club.
They also said Flagg’s website lists no upcoming performances. In the brief, Swift’s attorneys argued that Flagg waited eight months after the album was first announced before seeking immediate relief on the basis of irreparable harm.
Flagg’s post-announcement promotion
Swift’s lawyers said Flagg reframed her brand around the album after the announcement. They said Flagg had never used “the life of a showgirl” in her social media promotion before the album announcement, then used the phrase or posted generally about Swift or the album over 40 times on her branded Instagram and TikTok accounts.
The brief also said Flagg announced a brand-new podcast four days after Swift announced her album title and artwork in August 2025. Swift’s lawyers said the podcast mimicked Swift’s album artwork, logo, title and taglines, and that Flagg flooded her Instagram and TikTok pages with 40+ advertisements for her brand using Swift’s music, trademarks and other intellectual property.
The filing leaves the dispute in the court’s hands on Flagg’s request for emergency relief. Her bid would stop Swift from using the album branding while the lawsuit moves forward, and Swift’s response makes the conflict over consumer confusion the central issue for the judge.
