Field Dispatch
Taylor Swift vs. Vegas Showgirl | Matt Connarton Unleashed
Speaker 1: Also, and Taylor Swift's name came up in that article.
Speaker 1: This is another thing happening from Digital Musicnews dot Com.
Speaker 1: Now this I knew nothing about. This is new to me,
Speaker 1: but this just went up. Taylor Swift's legal team Taarors
Speaker 1: quote absurd trademark claims by former Vegas showgirl to shreds
Speaker 1: and threatens legal retaliation. I did not pre read this.
Speaker 1: I have no idea what we're getting into with this.
Speaker 1: I just saw this. It looked interesting. I guess as
Speaker 1: a Vegas showgirl causing some legal problems for Taylor Swift.
Speaker 1: I have no idea what this is about. We will
Speaker 1: all learn together. Okay, here we go Taylor Swift's legal
Speaker 1: team and again this is from Digital Musicnews dot Com.
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift's legal team launches a counter attack against a
Speaker 1: former Vegas showgirl, accusing her of clout chasing with her
Speaker 1: trademark infringement claim. Taylor Swift's legal team has officially opposed
Speaker 1: an injunction request from former Vegas showgirl Maren Wade, who
Speaker 1: filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Swift earlier this year
Speaker 1: over the title of her twenty twenty five album The
Speaker 1: Life of a Showgirl. Okay, now again I did not
Speaker 1: preread this. I don't I didn't know where this was
Speaker 1: all going. We're barely into this article and already I'm
Speaker 1: rolling my eyes. So Taylor Swift's album called The Life
Speaker 1: of a Showgirl. A former Las Vegas showgirl is suing
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift for trademark infringement. Okay, now, let's try to
Speaker 1: keep an open mind here. But this already sounds very,
Speaker 1: very frivolous. Let's see the article continues. The attorneys labeled
Speaker 1: her lawsuit meritless and absurd and claimed it was an
Speaker 1: attempt to exploit Swift's fame for a marketing boost for
Speaker 1: her own brand. Okay, again, this sounds frivolous and, as
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift's attorneys said, meritless and absurd. Let's see where
Speaker 1: we end up. Maybe there's something in the article that
Speaker 1: can sway us. Marin Wade, whose legal name is Maren Flagg,
Speaker 1: filed her lawsuit in March in the United States District
Speaker 1: Court in California. She owns the trademark for Confessions of
Speaker 1: a Showgirl, which she has owned since twenty fifteen and
Speaker 1: used since writing a column in Las Vegas Weekly. In
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, the brand has expanded into a podcast and
Speaker 1: a live cabaret show. Okay, so far, nothing here changes
Speaker 1: my opinion that this is a very frivolous lawsuit. It's
Speaker 1: not even the same thing. It's not even the same name.
Speaker 1: Swift's album The Life of a Showgirl, The Life of
Speaker 1: a Showgirl. Maren Wade's column is called Confessions of a Showgirl.
Speaker 1: Not the same thing. Life and Confessions, not the same world.
Speaker 1: This is yeah, I mean, I think Taylor Swift's attorneys
Speaker 1: are right. This is this is a she is cloud chasing.
Speaker 1: This is clearly what she's doing. Okay. In her filing,
Speaker 1: Maren Flag claimed that Taylor Swift's The Life of a
Speaker 1: Showgirl infringed upon her trademark. So, by the way, okay,
Speaker 1: I don't mean to keep interrupting myself, but is the
Speaker 1: idea that anything with the word showgirl in it is infringement?
Speaker 1: Is that? Is that what Maren Flags, whatever her name is,
Speaker 1: is that what her attorneys are contending. You just can't
Speaker 1: use the word showgirl on anything. What about the movies?
Speaker 1: You know? This movie Showgirl is a showgirl or Showgirls?
Speaker 1: I never saw it. It had the actress from Saved
Speaker 1: by the Bell. I never saw it. It looked horrible. Have
Speaker 1: have Have they also been sued the producers of that film?
Speaker 1: I mean, come on, I mean I realized that movie
Speaker 1: was like what twenty years ago at least maybe more.
Speaker 1: But anyway, but again, it just speaks to the absurdity
Speaker 1: of this. Okay, so let me start this paragraph over.
Speaker 1: Sorry I keep interrupting myself. In her filing, Flag claimed
Speaker 1: that Swift's The Life of a Showgirl infringed upon her
Speaker 1: trademark and created it just gets more absurd and created
Speaker 1: unfair competition for her own brand, unfair competition for her
Speaker 1: own brand. So I mean, just think about that. So
Speaker 1: she's by the way, I would love to meet the
Speaker 1: lawyers who took this on on behalf of this woman.
Speaker 1: They should probably be dispartd How how is an album
Speaker 1: with the word showgirl in a competition for this woman
Speaker 1: writes a column. She writes a column for a Las
Speaker 1: Vegas newspaper called The Life of a Showgirl. I'm confused
Speaker 1: about where the competition is, Okay, it says here. The
Speaker 1: suit even cites that when Swift applied to register her
Speaker 1: trademark for the album. The US Patent and Trademark Office
Speaker 1: initially declined because it found it was too similar to
Speaker 1: Flag's existing trademark. That can't be true. That can't be true.
Speaker 1: Can that possibly be true? I don't believe that. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's in the court filing. So if I'm saying that
Speaker 1: can't be true, I guess I'm accusing her lie her
Speaker 1: almost Freudian slip. I almost had her liars, her lawyers,
Speaker 1: but I do mean liars. I'm accusing her her lawyers
Speaker 1: of lying in the in the filing because I just
Speaker 1: don't believe that. How can that possibly be true? All right?
Speaker 1: We go on. Flagg asks for a preliminary injunction to
Speaker 1: immediately prevent Swift from further use of her Showgirl brand.
Speaker 1: But Swift's team is known for being aggressively litigious, and
Speaker 1: they wasted no time in clapping back with a filing
Speaker 1: of their own. I say good for them. They wrote
Speaker 1: quote this motion just like Maren Flagg's lawsuit should never
Speaker 1: have been filed. It is simply miss Flagg's attempt to
Speaker 1: use Taylor Swift's name and intellectual property to prop up
Speaker 1: her brand. Unquote, that's exactly what she's doing. According to
Speaker 1: their opposition, Swift's lawyers say that flag actually used Swift's
Speaker 1: music and lyrics to promote her confessions of a showgirl
Speaker 1: stage show. They further threatened to pursue remedies for the
Speaker 1: commercial misuse of Swift's intellectual property. Oh yeah, that's uh.
Speaker 1: I think Marion Flagga really may have. I mean, this is,
Speaker 1: you know, not only going to backfire. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is clearly this is backfiring. This is going to cause
Speaker 1: her more problems. And again, who are her attorneys? They
Speaker 1: they're clearly they have no idea what they're doing. Clearly.
Speaker 1: The filing also asserts that there is quote no chance
Speaker 1: of consumer confusion between the two brands. My point a
Speaker 1: few minutes ago, citing the legendary attention to detail of
Speaker 1: Swift's devoted fans and noting the vast difference between a small,
Speaker 1: intimate cabaret act and Swift's global stadium performances, that comparison
Speaker 1: is absurd. Her lawyers wrote, that's got a sting. That's
Speaker 1: got a sting. A little Yeah, your stupid little cabaret
Speaker 1: show not quite the same as a Taylor Swift global
Speaker 1: stadium tour. So we think that people are gonna know
Speaker 1: the difference, just saying. The article continues, Swift's team also
Speaker 1: asks the judge to consider why Flag is asking for
Speaker 1: immediate relief on the basis of irreparable damage to her
Speaker 1: brand a whole eight months after the album was first announced.
Speaker 1: They argue that Flag in fact spent several of those
Speaker 1: months attempting to associate herself more closely with Swift's showgirl
Speaker 1: branding in her own. Ah says here again, this is
Speaker 1: the filing that Taylor Swift's lawyer's did the countersuit. There's
Speaker 1: a lot here. This is what's in there filing, some
Speaker 1: of it, not the whole filing. Obviously. Since the album announcement,
Speaker 1: Plaintiff has reframed her brand around the album, flooding her
Speaker 1: social media accounts with post attempting to align herself with
Speaker 1: Miss Swift and the album. Prior to the album announcement,
Speaker 1: Plaintiff had never used the life of a showgirl in
Speaker 1: her social media promotion. Following the announcement, Plaintiff used the
Speaker 1: phrase or posted generally about Miss Swift or the album
Speaker 1: over forty times on her branded Instagram and TikTok accounts.
Speaker 1: In fact, a mere four days after Miss Swift announced
Speaker 1: her album title into Artwork. In August twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: Miss Flag announced a brand new podcast mimicking Miss Swift's
Speaker 1: album artwork, logo, title, and taglines. Then plaintiff flooded her
Speaker 1: Instagram and TikTok pages with forty plus advertisements for her
Speaker 1: brand using Miss Swift's music, trademarks and other intellectual property
Speaker 1: without permission. Unquote. M busted each of these the briefly James,
Speaker 1: constitutes actionable infringement and that thas rights management quote will
Speaker 1: be pursuing appropriate remedies for that unquote. So this woman,
Speaker 1: this idiot, frankly Maren Flagg, you know, in attempting to
Speaker 1: cloud Chase, ended up just causing a whole lot of
Speaker 1: problems for herself.
Podbean