Taylor Swift’s Lawyers Call Showgirl Lawsuit ‘Absurd’

Taylor Swift’s legal team is not playing nice. The pop superstar’s attorneys at Venable LLP filed a blistering opposition Wednesday to a preliminary injunction request from former Las Vegas showgirl Maren Wade — and the filing doesn’t just push back on the lawsuit. It flips the script entirely, accusing Wade of being the actual infringer.

Wade, whose legal name is Maren Flagg, filed suit in United States District Court in California in late March, claiming Swift’s 2025 album The Life of a Showgirl infringes on her trademark for the phrase “Confessions of a Showgirl” — a brand she’s held since 2015 and built into a Las Vegas Weekly column, a podcast, and a live cabaret show. Her lawsuit argued the two titles “share the same structure, the same dominant phrase, and the same overall commercial impression” and that both operate in overlapping markets reaching the same consumers. She asked the court to immediately block Swift from selling any related merchandise while the case plays out.

Swift’s team wasted exactly zero time making clear what they think of that argument.

“This motion, just like Maren Flagg’s lawsuit, should never have been filed,” the filing opens. “It is simply Ms. Flagg’s latest attempt to use Taylor Swift’s name and intellectual property to prop up her brand.”

The ‘Clout-Chasing’ Accusation

The opposition brief — filed by attorneys Max N. Wellman, J. Douglas Baldridge, and Katherine Wright Morrone on behalf of Swift, TAS Rights Management, UMG Recordings, and Bravado International Group Merchandising Services — doesn’t just defend Swift. It builds a case that Wade was actively riding Swift’s coattails before the lawsuit was ever filed.

According to the filing, just four days after Swift announced the album title and artwork in August 2025, Wade launched a brand-new podcast that allegedly mimicked Swift’s album artwork, logo, title, and taglines. From there, the brief claims, Wade flooded her Instagram and TikTok pages with more than 40 posts using Swift’s music, lyrics, album art, and hashtags including #thelifeofashowgirl, #swifties, #ts12, and #taylornation — all without permission.

“Far from showing any concern about the album after its announcement, Ms. Flagg spent several months centering her brand on The Life of a Showgirl‘s name, artwork, music and lyrics to promote her little-known cabaret show,” the filing reads. “When plaintiff’s attempts to exploit Ms. Swift’s intellectual property failed to garner the desired attention (likely because, despite Ms. Flagg’s best efforts, consumers were not confused into believing these two brands were even remotely connected), she concocted a meritless lawsuit.”

The attorneys say each of those posts constitutes “actionable infringement” and that TAS Rights Management “will be pursuing appropriate remedies for that intentional, commercial misuse.” It’s a strategy Swift’s team has used before — when Utah’s Evermore Park sued over her Evermore album in 2021, Swift countersued the theme park for playing her music without proper licenses. Both cases were eventually dropped with no money changing hands.

Stadium Tours vs. Golf Resorts: The Confusion Argument

The filing also takes direct aim at the heart of Wade’s infringement claim — that consumers might confuse the two brands. Swift’s lawyers are not subtle about how they feel about that theory.

“That comparison is absurd,” they write flatly.

The brief contrasts Swift’s record-breaking stadium concerts against Wade’s cabaret appearances, which the filing describes as taking place in venues including a “55+ active community,” a “55+ golf resort,” an “RV & Golf Resort,” and a “90 seat cabaret-style venue that offers dinner.” Swift’s lawyers also note that Wade’s website currently lists no upcoming performances.

They also invoke the Swifties themselves as evidence. “It is widely known that Ms. Swift’s fanbase is a dedicated and informed set of consumers,” the filing reads. “Their attention to detail is legendary when it comes to information about Ms. Swift’s albums or merchandise, with fans eagerly detecting ‘easter eggs’ and pouring over Ms. Swift’s works in connection with numerology codes and word searches. There is no chance they would be confused between plaintiff’s cabaret shows and Ms. Swift’s album and related promotional merchandise.”

The filing also raises a timing question: if Wade’s brand was suffering irreparable harm, why did she wait eight full months after the album announcement to ask for emergency relief? Swift’s lawyers argue the delay — and what they describe as Wade’s active attempts to align herself with the album during those months — undercuts any claim of urgency.

The First Amendment Play

Beyond the consumer confusion argument, Swift’s attorneys contend that The Life of a Showgirl is protected expression under the First Amendment, citing the legal precedent established in Rogers v. Grimaldi. They also point to a recent parallel: Lady Gaga’s successful defense of her Mayhem album title and merchandise against a similar trademark lawsuit from a surfboard company, a case known as Lost Int’l, LLC v. Germanotta. Under the Rogers standard, Swift’s team argues, a plaintiff can’t establish infringement for an expressive work’s title unless it’s either artistically irrelevant to the work or explicitly misleads consumers about its source.

The brief also notes that numerous works with similar titles — “Confessions of a Goddess,” “Confessions of a Vegas Showgirl,” “Portrait of a Showgirl,” and “The Last Showgirl” — have all come and gone since Wade obtained her trademark without triggering any legal action.

As for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s initial rejection of Swift’s trademark application — which Wade’s attorney Jaymie Parkkinen had cited in a Rolling Stone interview as proof of the conflict, saying his client “spent more than a decade building ‘Confessions of a Showgirl.’ She registered it. She earned it” — Swift’s lawyers push back on the significance, calling it a “nonfinal office action” and stressing that the process is ongoing and far from settled.

Granting the injunction, they add, would cost Swift tens of millions of dollars in lost merchandise revenue.

Wade’s Team Isn’t Backing Down

Parkkinen, for his part, didn’t seem rattled by the 180-page counterattack. In a statement responding to the filing, he said: “We read it. Defendants assert First Amendment protection for napkins and hairbrushes. We look forward to filing our response next week.”

Wade’s team will get the chance to rebut Swift’s arguments in their own filing before the matter heads to a federal courtroom. The hearing is scheduled for May 27 in Los Angeles — where a judge will decide whether to grant the injunction and let this legal showdown continue to play out.