Taylor Swift ‘Showgirl’ Case Turns on Free Speech, Judge Says

A federal judge indicated Taylor Swift’s chances of beating a Las Vegas entertainer’s bid to ban the pop star from using the “The Life of a Showgirl” album name during their trademark dispute will turn on whether the title is protected by free speech.

Judge Serena R. Murillo questioned why Maren Wade’s infringement claims over her “Confessions of a Showgirl” trademark against Swift’s album title wouldn’t be barred by a doctrine called the Rogers test, which allows trademarks to be used in an expressive work without the owner’s permission if it’s artistically relevant and not explicitly misleading.

That’s “the real crucible” of her concerns, said Murillo of the US District Court for the Central District of California during a Wednesday hearing in Los Angeles.

Wade’s counsel, Jaymie Parkkinen of Santa Monica, Calif., argued Swift’s album title lost free speech protections when the pop star applied to register the name at the US Patent and Trademark Office—with the application initially rejected due to its similarity to Wade’s mark and now paused.

While album names are typically protected by the Rogers test, the US Supreme Court limited it in a 2023 decision over dog toys, ruling it doesn’t apply to using “another’s trademark as a trademark” without permission.

That’s why the more rigorous likelihood-of-consumer-confusion analysis is applicable, Parkkinen said, and Swift’s “erasure” of the “Confessions of a Showgirl” brand Wade built for 12 years is more than enough proof of harm to warrant an injunction.

“Plaintiff’s mark has come to mean defendant’s,” he said, and Swift should have submitted a declaration to the court if she truly felt her speech was threatened.

Murillo reiterated that “The Life of a Showgirl” is an album, and noted that Wade hasn’t made an album but instead created a podcast and blog. Parkkinen argued the goods don’t have to be the exact same to be found related, saying it’s enough that Swift and Wade are “both performers in the same space telling the showgirl story.”

Wade—whose legal name is Maren Flagg—sued Swift in March, accusing Swift’s latest album, and all its merch, of infringement.

Swift’s counsel, Doug Baldridge of Venable LLP, argued it’s “undisputed” that Swift’s album is an expressive work subject to free speech protection, relating it to Lady Gaga beating a surf company’s bid for a similar injunction over her “Mayhem” album.

Baldrige also took digs at Wade to argue there’s no likelihood of confusion. There’s no way a consumer would see Wade’s cabaret show at a dinner venue or RV park and think it’s Swift’s, he said. “It’s just not realistic and you don’t need to suspend your common sense.”

And there’s no need for an injunction when Wade waited eight months after Swift’s album release to sue, he added. Wade’s social media posts tried to ride on the coattails of the album to promote her commercial products, encouraging users to follow her in her “showgirl era.”

“I don’t know if you follow Swift, your honor, but ‘era’ is a pretty big word to us,” Baldrige said, and there’s no evidence Wade has been harmed.

The case is Flagg v. Swift, C.D. Cal., No. 26-cv-03354, hearing held 5/27/26.