Taylor Swift vs Vegas Showgirl absurdity continues | Matt Connarton Unleashed

0:00 Speaker 1: So we talked about this on the show a couple of weeks ago, this lawsuit. And you know, the thing is, when you get to be as successful as Taylor Swift, you know, you've got all the money in the world, and that's great, but you know, I mean, she's arguably one of the biggest stars in the world right not just in the United States but globally, a global icon, if you will, truly, I mean, she's ascended to that point. But when you have all the money in the world, some people want to take some of it from you.

0:28 Speaker 1: And I'm not just talking about taxes. I'm talking about people who sue you. Now we talked about this again, I forget it was either two weeks ago or three weeks ago on the show, this lawsuit. So when you have money, people sue you to try to get your money. And there is this podcaster named Maren Flagg who has a podcast called Confessions of a Showgirl, who has sued Taylor Swift over a trademark infringement because Taylor Swift has an album called Life of a Showgirl. So Maren flag her podcast is called Confessions of a Showgirl.

1:07 Speaker 1: But she apparently in her legal team feels that Taylor Swift has infringed on her trademark with her album Life of a Showgirl. So I guess and by that logic, and so we have an update. That's why we're going there's an update on this that actually really surprises me. But I was surprised by all of this and pretty critical of it because to me, it sounds like a frivolous lawsuit. You know, I mean, yes, both Life of a Showgirl and Confessions of a Showgirl have the word showgirl in them, but by the lie, if you're going to call that trademark infringement, by that logic, I guess Maren Flag with her podcast Confessions of a Showgirl, I guess you can't ever have the word showgirl and anything ever, because if you do, you're infringing on her trade.

1:57 Speaker 1: I guess she now owns all the rights to the word showgirl. You know, am I gonna end up owing this woman money for even saying the word showgirl multiple times on the show today? As we talk about this, I mean, you know, by that logic, I guess I should, right, I must owe her something. I mean, it's absurd to me, you know, Life of a Showgirl Confessions of a Showgirl not the same thing. They both use the word showgirl. They also both use the words of and uh, you know, I mean, come on. It's very silly to me, and I feel that this is a very frivolous lawsuit.

2:36 Speaker 1: And I agreed with what Taylor Swift's legal team has said about this, that it is frivolous. And this woman, Marin Flagg, this podcaster, or she's just clout chasing. A lot of podcasters do that, by the way. But there's a new wrinkle to all of this because I thought this would get thrown out. I really did. This is so obviously frivolous, but no. This is an update from a couple days ago. This is from Digitalmusicnews dot Com, one of my favorite websites for music industry news. Judge considers injunction against Taylor Swift's Life of a Showgirl branding as trademark.

3:15 Speaker 1: Battle intensifies, intensifies, So this podcaster Maren Flagg, who apparently believes that she just owns the rights to the word showgirl. She's actually getting some traction with this. I guess I really thought this would have gone away by now. I would have thought this would have gotten thrown out for being frivolous, but no, so it says here again. This is from the article from Digital Musicnews dot com. A judge weighs an injunction against Taylor Swift's Life of a Showgirl branding and light of her trademark's prior suspension due to actual showgirl Maren Wade's own trademark.

3:55 Speaker 1: Oh, by the way, so about the name, because I said Maren fla. Maren Flag is her legal name. But she's a former Vegas showgirl named Maren Wade, so I guess Maren Wade is her stage name. Maren Flagg is her legal name. So just in case anyone's confused about the Maren's because I was thrown by that. For a second. Again, I think this is I think this is absurd. I can't believe this is happening. Don't get me wrong. I mean again, Taylor Swift has all the money in the world. It's not like I feel sorry for her and this kind of thing happens.

4:29 Speaker 1: But this is really absurd to me. But I'm not a legal expert of any kind. I'm a layman. You know I'm not. I mean, I do know, I do have some knowledge about intellectual property and trademark and copyright and all that kind of thing, just because of some of the work that I've done in the music industry. But I so I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a legal expert. I'm probably speaking out of turn here, but this just seems absurd to me. All Right, So let's look at this article. Here's the update on this. If you thought former Vegas Showgirl Maren Wade legal name Maren Flagg, was trying to ride Taylor Swift's coattails over the latter's Life of a Showgirl branding, think again when I still think that.

5:13 Speaker 1: When Taylor Swift's team tried to file their trademark for the megastar's latest album, it was suspended after they discovered a pre existing trademark for flags similarly named Confessions of a Showgirl. Even the trademark office thought there could be confusion between the two entities. Okay, let's stop on that for a moment, because I know a little bit about how this part works when you file for a trademark on something. Because apparently when Taylor Swift went when her team, when her representation filed for the trademark, I still find this even this is hard to believe, but apparently when they filed for the trademark Life of a Showgirl, it was initially rejected for being too similar to another existing trademark.

6:03 Speaker 1: Now that that part surprises me, but it's not unusual when you file for a trademark. Sometimes you get rejected on the first pass because you have to supply additional You have to make some clarifications about what exactly the branding the trademark that you're filing for, what it's going to be used for, how it's going to be used, and if there is a concern that it's too close to an existing trademark, you have to kind of you have to supply documentation or explanations explaining why it's not and why there is not going to be any confusion, because again, we're talking about two different things.

6:47 Speaker 1: Not only you know, I'm sorry the word showgirl is in both names, but that's not enough from my perspective. Not only that, but Life of a show Girl is the name of an album by Taylor Swift, Confessions of a Showgirl is the name of a podcast by a former Las Vegas showgirl. To me, those two things are different enough that no one is going to be confused. No one is going to be confused. But very often when you file for a trademark, it does it may get reject I know because I've done it. It may get rejected on the first attempt, and you might have to supply, you might have to resubmit and supply additional information and clarifications.

7:29 Speaker 1: So I'm surprised the trademark off Is even rejected it the first time as being too similar. But they did apparently they did. We know that. But so Swift her team then had to resubmit it. I assume they made whatever clarifications they needed to and were able to trademark Life of a Showgirl. So again, it's just not unusual for that to go that way. It happens, Okay, Now, according to the article the initial rejection, it says that's an important detail because it proves that Swift's team was aware of Flag's brand ahead of time, but opted to go ahead with their own showgirl project.

8:10 Speaker 1: Okay, so we do know, right, So, as the article points out, so Swift's legal team knew, I mean, they probably didn't know, or they may not have known when they filed the initial trademark. But when they had to submit a follow up to get the trademark. They knew about Confessions of a Showgirl Megan Wade's podcast, But again, so what clearly two different things, So what who cares? Okay, it says here. The lawsuit filed by Flag and her team argued that Swift's massive commercial footprint has caused reverse confusion quote unquote, that's their term.

8:48 Speaker 1: I didn't know this was a thing. You know, you hear terms like reverse discrimination and things like that. I didn't know about reverse confusion. That must be a legal term, reverse confusion that effectively erodes and absorbs her decade old federally registered Confessions of a Showgirl trademark. Swift's team clapped back, stating that her album is an expressive work protected by the First Amendment, making an injunction extreme and unnecessary. They also took it a step further, asserting that Flag rode Swift's enormous marketing machine for eight and a half months and reaping all the benefits of potential confusion between the two brands before filing her lawsuit.

9:39 Speaker 1: Yeah, and there is evidence of that of Megan Flag trying to ride the coattails. See, you can't you can't try to lag. I mean, look, it's smart. You can you can overshoot and end up looking desperate, which Megan Flag, Megan Wade whatever you want to call her, not Megan Maren, sorry the podcaster. You can overshoot and end up looking desperate if you're not careful. But anytime, and this is one of the first things I learned in the music industry, anytime that you can somehow associate yourself with an entity of some sort that is bigger than you, it can only help you, right, It adds to your credibility.

10:20 Speaker 1: These days, we refer to it as social proof. Right, anytime that you can associate with an entity that is bigger than you, that can be helpful as long as it's a positive association. So I can see why the podcaster would attempt to do that. But you can't try to do that. And then, I mean, again, I'm not a legal expert, but I'm just thinking about this logically, you can't try to do that intentionally, go out of your way to associate with something bigger, a larger entity, and then turn around and say that larger entity has harmed me.

10:53 Speaker 1: Because that larger entity what they harmed you? By creating what you ended up using as an opportunity to try to boost your own profile, and then when that didn't work out for you, you turn around and you file a lawsuit. This is this is so frivolous to me. I can't believe this is still going on. Okay, it says here Taylor Swift's trademark application. This is an important detail. Taylor Swift's trademark application for Life of a Showgirl, filed by her intellectual property management company, Task Rights Management, hit a major roadblock at the United States Patent and Trademark Office back in March.

11:34 Speaker 1: Rather than being simply approved, the application was hit with a non final likelihood of confusion refusal and was officially suspended.

11:47 Speaker 1: That means that, while no action has been taken thus far, the judge has concluded hearings on the matter by stating that she quote planned to issue a written ruling shortly unquote In theory, that could mean a legal injunction against Taylor Swift's branding, given that Flag's own legal trademark precedes it. It's the latest interesting twist in what seemed at face value like a potentially frivolous lawsuit. And that's that's the update. So this is a this is a new twist. Uh again, Uh, this is a potentially frivolous lawsuit.

12:27 Speaker 1: This is a frivolous lawsuit. I mean, I'm sorry, they're not They're not the same thing. And you know what, this kind of reminds me of though when I think about Actually, I'm gonna look this up. There was a band. Okay, so for years and years and years there was a band, well, Guns n' Roses, the Axel Rose would would talk about this album called Chinese Democracy, and it was a weird thing. Like for those of you who are old enough to remember, Chinese Democracy was talked about and floating around in the ether for I mean, I don't know, it might have been more than a decade before it finally came out, and it was this really weird situation where I guess Axel Rose just really liked that title Chinese Democracy, and thought that would be a great name, the perfect name for the next Guns n' Roses album.

13:29 Speaker 1: Because the title of the album was announced as being Chinese Democracy in theory before anything was even recorded for it. It was just like, which is weird? I always thought that was so bizarre that he decided the name and announced the name like before there was ever even a hint that the album was going to be coming out, and it became just this running joke. Oh yeah, there's there's this make believe autu called Chinese Democracy by Guns n' Roses that we all know is never going to come out, by the way, eventually, it did eventually, But that title existed for so long, and for whatever reason, Axel Rose was so committed to the idea, the concept that that was going to be the name of the album.

14:18 Speaker 1: So finally, somebody, and forgive me, I cannot remember who it was, so I'm looking it up. I'm trying to google this as quickly as I can while I'm live on the air. Another band tried to call their album Chinese Democracy. What band tried to steal the name? Which I thought at the time was hilarious. Oh it was the Offspring. I found it. The Offspring punk band. The Offspring tried to steal the Chinese Democracy name from Guns n' Roses in April of two thousand and three. Capitalizing on Axel Roses lengthy and releasing the album, the Offspring issued a press release announcing their new album would be titled Chinese Democracy, and then in parentheses, you snooze, you Lose.

15:10 Speaker 1: That was gonna be the full title, Chinese Democracy, You choose, you snooze, you Lose. Axel Roses Camp quickly responded with a cease and desist order. The Offspring eventually dropped the name and released their record as Splinter. I always I always thought that was hilarious when the Offspring did that Chinese Democracy, you snooze, you Lose. Oh and by the way, because I'm looking at it here, it was.

15:38 Speaker 2: Fourteen years, fourteen years of this mythical, mysterious album called Chinese Democracy by Guns n' Roses, fourteen years until it finally came out at but sure enough.

15:54 Speaker 1: He went with that title. He just really loved that title, I guess. But yeah, the Offspring, uh, the Offspring, that was I guess it was an April Fool's joke by them, according to this other article that I'm looking at. But yeah, they went with that title and they got to see some disci But see a lot of how does that even work because a lot of albums just like a lot of song titles, you know, there's a lot of song titles where you know, you think about a song title and you say, well, there's a million songs that have that title, and there's there certainly are albums where more than one artist has the same album title.

16:32 Speaker 1: I just want to see if there's any other examples of this. Are there other examples? God bless ai, are there other examples of this type of thing? And just see if there are, because I'm curious now that we're talking about this.

16:54 Speaker 1: While direct attempts to hijack a highly anticipated album name to troll a rival are rare, the music industry has seen several famous battles over stolen album titles, parody naming wars, and branding beefs. Oh, there's a few of them here, all right, let's look at this. The first one limp Biscuit versus Ministry. In two thousand and one, Fred Durst announced a highly anticipated new Olympiscuit album would be titled less than Zero. Hearing this, Al Jorgensen, frontman of the industrial metal band Ministry, decided to mess with them.

17:27 Speaker 1: Ministry quickly announced that their upcoming album would also be called less than Zero to steal olymp Biscuits thunder Durst backed down and changed his album title to chocolate starfish on the hot dog flavored water, while Ministry eventually released their album as how do you even say that? In amsist? I can't even say it. Long word starts with a probably a made up word. But uh yeah, I didn't know about that. I did not know about that. But less than Zero. That's also the name of a movie, less than Zero.

18:00 Speaker 1: If this album had come out as lesson zero, would one of the producers of the movie sue Limpiscuit for that? I mean, why not? I mean, if they had the same legal team as Maren Wade the Podcaster, I'm sure they would. Let's see the Replacements versus the Beatles. Oh, the Replacements tried to release an album called let It Be. Can't do that Ugly Kid Joe versus Two Live Crew over the title as ugly as they want to be. Yeah, there's a bunch of examples of it. But yeah, good stuff. But anyway, I just say all that to say Marin Wade, Maren whatever, the Podcaster, her lawsuit is frivolous.