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