Taylor Swift vs. Vegas Showgirl | Matt Connarton Unleashed

0:00 Speaker 1: Also, and Taylor Swift's name came up in that article.

0:03 Speaker 1: This is another thing happening from Digital Musicnews dot Com.

0:06 Speaker 1: Now this I knew nothing about. This is new to me,

0:09 Speaker 1: but this just went up. Taylor Swift's legal team Taarors

0:13 Speaker 1: quote absurd trademark claims by former Vegas showgirl to shreds

0:18 Speaker 1: and threatens legal retaliation. I did not pre read this.

0:22 Speaker 1: I have no idea what we're getting into with this.

0:24 Speaker 1: I just saw this. It looked interesting. I guess as

0:27 Speaker 1: a Vegas showgirl causing some legal problems for Taylor Swift.

0:30 Speaker 1: I have no idea what this is about. We will

0:32 Speaker 1: all learn together. Okay, here we go Taylor Swift's legal

0:37 Speaker 1: team and again this is from Digital Musicnews dot Com.

0:39 Speaker 1: Taylor Swift's legal team launches a counter attack against a

0:43 Speaker 1: former Vegas showgirl, accusing her of clout chasing with her

0:47 Speaker 1: trademark infringement claim. Taylor Swift's legal team has officially opposed

0:52 Speaker 1: an injunction request from former Vegas showgirl Maren Wade, who

0:57 Speaker 1: filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Swift earlier this year

1:01 Speaker 1: over the title of her twenty twenty five album The

1:05 Speaker 1: Life of a Showgirl. Okay, now again I did not

1:12 Speaker 1: preread this. I don't I didn't know where this was

1:15 Speaker 1: all going. We're barely into this article and already I'm

1:19 Speaker 1: rolling my eyes. So Taylor Swift's album called The Life

1:27 Speaker 1: of a Showgirl. A former Las Vegas showgirl is suing

1:30 Speaker 1: Taylor Swift for trademark infringement. Okay, now, let's try to

1:36 Speaker 1: keep an open mind here. But this already sounds very,

1:40 Speaker 1: very frivolous. Let's see the article continues. The attorneys labeled

1:48 Speaker 1: her lawsuit meritless and absurd and claimed it was an

1:52 Speaker 1: attempt to exploit Swift's fame for a marketing boost for

1:56 Speaker 1: her own brand. Okay, again, this sounds frivolous and, as

2:03 Speaker 1: Taylor Swift's attorneys said, meritless and absurd. Let's see where

2:06 Speaker 1: we end up. Maybe there's something in the article that

2:08 Speaker 1: can sway us. Marin Wade, whose legal name is Maren Flagg,

2:14 Speaker 1: filed her lawsuit in March in the United States District

2:17 Speaker 1: Court in California. She owns the trademark for Confessions of

2:23 Speaker 1: a Showgirl, which she has owned since twenty fifteen and

2:27 Speaker 1: used since writing a column in Las Vegas Weekly. In

2:31 Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, the brand has expanded into a podcast and

2:35 Speaker 1: a live cabaret show. Okay, so far, nothing here changes

2:41 Speaker 1: my opinion that this is a very frivolous lawsuit. It's

2:44 Speaker 1: not even the same thing. It's not even the same name.

2:48 Speaker 1: Swift's album The Life of a Showgirl, The Life of

2:50 Speaker 1: a Showgirl. Maren Wade's column is called Confessions of a Showgirl.

2:56 Speaker 1: Not the same thing. Life and Confessions, not the same world.

3:01 Speaker 1: This is yeah, I mean, I think Taylor Swift's attorneys

3:04 Speaker 1: are right. This is this is a she is cloud chasing.

3:08 Speaker 1: This is clearly what she's doing. Okay. In her filing,

3:13 Speaker 1: Maren Flag claimed that Taylor Swift's The Life of a

3:18 Speaker 1: Showgirl infringed upon her trademark. So, by the way, okay,

3:22 Speaker 1: I don't mean to keep interrupting myself, but is the

3:28 Speaker 1: idea that anything with the word showgirl in it is infringement?

3:31 Speaker 1: Is that? Is that what Maren Flags, whatever her name is,

3:35 Speaker 1: is that what her attorneys are contending. You just can't

3:39 Speaker 1: use the word showgirl on anything. What about the movies?

3:43 Speaker 1: You know? This movie Showgirl is a showgirl or Showgirls?

3:46 Speaker 1: I never saw it. It had the actress from Saved

3:48 Speaker 1: by the Bell. I never saw it. It looked horrible. Have

3:53 Speaker 1: have Have they also been sued the producers of that film?

3:57 Speaker 1: I mean, come on, I mean I realized that movie

3:59 Speaker 1: was like what twenty years ago at least maybe more.

4:02 Speaker 1: But anyway, but again, it just speaks to the absurdity

4:06 Speaker 1: of this. Okay, so let me start this paragraph over.

4:08 Speaker 1: Sorry I keep interrupting myself. In her filing, Flag claimed

4:13 Speaker 1: that Swift's The Life of a Showgirl infringed upon her

4:16 Speaker 1: trademark and created it just gets more absurd and created

4:22 Speaker 1: unfair competition for her own brand, unfair competition for her

4:29 Speaker 1: own brand. So I mean, just think about that. So

4:39 Speaker 1: she's by the way, I would love to meet the

4:41 Speaker 1: lawyers who took this on on behalf of this woman.

4:50 Speaker 1: They should probably be dispartd How how is an album

4:57 Speaker 1: with the word showgirl in a competition for this woman

5:00 Speaker 1: writes a column. She writes a column for a Las

5:03 Speaker 1: Vegas newspaper called The Life of a Showgirl. I'm confused

5:08 Speaker 1: about where the competition is, Okay, it says here. The

5:13 Speaker 1: suit even cites that when Swift applied to register her

5:17 Speaker 1: trademark for the album. The US Patent and Trademark Office

5:21 Speaker 1: initially declined because it found it was too similar to

5:25 Speaker 1: Flag's existing trademark. That can't be true. That can't be true.

5:33 Speaker 1: Can that possibly be true? I don't believe that. I mean,

5:39 Speaker 1: it's in the court filing. So if I'm saying that

5:43 Speaker 1: can't be true, I guess I'm accusing her lie her

5:46 Speaker 1: almost Freudian slip. I almost had her liars, her lawyers,

5:50 Speaker 1: but I do mean liars. I'm accusing her her lawyers

5:54 Speaker 1: of lying in the in the filing because I just

5:58 Speaker 1: don't believe that. How can that possibly be true? All right?

6:02 Speaker 1: We go on. Flagg asks for a preliminary injunction to

6:07 Speaker 1: immediately prevent Swift from further use of her Showgirl brand.

6:12 Speaker 1: But Swift's team is known for being aggressively litigious, and

6:15 Speaker 1: they wasted no time in clapping back with a filing

6:19 Speaker 1: of their own. I say good for them. They wrote

6:23 Speaker 1: quote this motion just like Maren Flagg's lawsuit should never

6:27 Speaker 1: have been filed. It is simply miss Flagg's attempt to

6:30 Speaker 1: use Taylor Swift's name and intellectual property to prop up

6:34 Speaker 1: her brand. Unquote, that's exactly what she's doing. According to

6:37 Speaker 1: their opposition, Swift's lawyers say that flag actually used Swift's

6:43 Speaker 1: music and lyrics to promote her confessions of a showgirl

6:48 Speaker 1: stage show. They further threatened to pursue remedies for the

6:52 Speaker 1: commercial misuse of Swift's intellectual property. Oh yeah, that's uh.

7:04 Speaker 1: I think Marion Flagga really may have. I mean, this is,

7:09 Speaker 1: you know, not only going to backfire. I mean, this

7:12 Speaker 1: is clearly this is backfiring. This is going to cause

7:14 Speaker 1: her more problems. And again, who are her attorneys? They

7:19 Speaker 1: they're clearly they have no idea what they're doing. Clearly.

7:22 Speaker 1: The filing also asserts that there is quote no chance

7:25 Speaker 1: of consumer confusion between the two brands. My point a

7:28 Speaker 1: few minutes ago, citing the legendary attention to detail of

7:31 Speaker 1: Swift's devoted fans and noting the vast difference between a small,

7:36 Speaker 1: intimate cabaret act and Swift's global stadium performances, that comparison

7:42 Speaker 1: is absurd. Her lawyers wrote, that's got a sting. That's

7:47 Speaker 1: got a sting. A little Yeah, your stupid little cabaret

7:50 Speaker 1: show not quite the same as a Taylor Swift global

7:54 Speaker 1: stadium tour. So we think that people are gonna know

7:58 Speaker 1: the difference, just saying. The article continues, Swift's team also

8:08 Speaker 1: asks the judge to consider why Flag is asking for

8:12 Speaker 1: immediate relief on the basis of irreparable damage to her

8:16 Speaker 1: brand a whole eight months after the album was first announced.

8:20 Speaker 1: They argue that Flag in fact spent several of those

8:24 Speaker 1: months attempting to associate herself more closely with Swift's showgirl

8:29 Speaker 1: branding in her own. Ah says here again, this is

8:40 Speaker 1: the filing that Taylor Swift's lawyer's did the countersuit. There's

8:46 Speaker 1: a lot here. This is what's in there filing, some

8:49 Speaker 1: of it, not the whole filing. Obviously. Since the album announcement,

8:53 Speaker 1: Plaintiff has reframed her brand around the album, flooding her

8:58 Speaker 1: social media accounts with post attempting to align herself with

9:02 Speaker 1: Miss Swift and the album. Prior to the album announcement,

9:07 Speaker 1: Plaintiff had never used the life of a showgirl in

9:10 Speaker 1: her social media promotion. Following the announcement, Plaintiff used the

9:15 Speaker 1: phrase or posted generally about Miss Swift or the album

9:19 Speaker 1: over forty times on her branded Instagram and TikTok accounts.

9:25 Speaker 1: In fact, a mere four days after Miss Swift announced

9:28 Speaker 1: her album title into Artwork. In August twenty twenty five,

9:31 Speaker 1: Miss Flag announced a brand new podcast mimicking Miss Swift's

9:35 Speaker 1: album artwork, logo, title, and taglines. Then plaintiff flooded her

9:41 Speaker 1: Instagram and TikTok pages with forty plus advertisements for her

9:46 Speaker 1: brand using Miss Swift's music, trademarks and other intellectual property

9:52 Speaker 1: without permission. Unquote. M busted each of these the briefly James,

10:00 Speaker 1: constitutes actionable infringement and that thas rights management quote will

10:06 Speaker 1: be pursuing appropriate remedies for that unquote. So this woman,

10:12 Speaker 1: this idiot, frankly Maren Flagg, you know, in attempting to

10:18 Speaker 1: cloud Chase, ended up just causing a whole lot of

10:21 Speaker 1: problems for herself.