Taylor Swift’s legal team has responded harshly to a former Las Vegas artist who is suing the pop star for trademark infringement over her latest album.
Maren Flagg, who performs under the name Maren Wade, filed the lawsuit in March alleging that Swift’s album, The life of a showgirlinfringes its own 2015 trademark for the phrase Confessions of a showgirl.
In a forceful legal brief filed Wednesday, Swift’s lawyers dismissed the case as “absurd” and a transparent attempt by Flagg to use the singer’s fame to boost his own brand.
The case centers on Flagg’s demand that Swift be prevented from selling merchandise related to the album while the legal battle continues.
However, Swift’s lawyers argued that the motion “should never have been filed” and pointed out the huge difference between a global pop star and Flagg’s cabaret career.
They noted that Flagg typically performs at small venues such as “55+ active communities,” golf resorts, and 90-seat dinner parties, adding that his official website does not currently list any upcoming shows.
Swift’s lawyers also raised eyebrows by accusing Flagg of trying to profit from the album’s success before deciding to sue.
According to the court filing, Flagg had never used the phrase “a showgirl’s life” on social media until Swift announced her project.
Following the announcement, Flagg reportedly posted about Swift or the album more than 40 times on his Instagram and TikTok accounts.
Swift’s team says this shows that the plaintiff was happy to be associated with intellectual property until she saw a legal opportunity.
On the other hand, Flagg’s attorney, Jaymie Parkkinen, is undeterred and plans to file a response next week.
He previously claimed that Swift’s team attempted to register the album title, but was rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office because it was too similar to Flagg’s existing trademark.
Parkkinen argued that while they respect Swift’s success, trademark law exists to protect what creators at all levels have built.
He insisted that Flagg earned his trademark and that the case is about ensuring that a smaller creator’s rights are not trampled by a global superstar.
