Lady Gaga Seeks $232K From Lost Surfboards After ‘Mayhem’ Suit, Calls It a ‘Publicity Stunt’

Lady Gaga is asking a federal judge to make Lost Surfboards pay $232,484 in legal fees after she defeated its Mayhem trademark lawsuit, accusing the surf company of using the case as a "publicity stunt" to pressure her into a settlement.

The singer asked U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin on Friday to order Lost to reimburse the attorneys' fees she incurred defending the case, which Olguin dismissed with prejudice last month.

Gaga's lawyers argue Lost's lawsuit was legally deficient from the beginning and became more burdensome after the company lost an early attempt to stop her from using the Mayhem name.

"A litigant should not be permitted to use the federal courts to launch a publicity stunt masquerading as a lawsuit against a high-profile artist," attorney Orin Snyder wrote in the filing.

Lost Surfboards sued Gaga, whose legal name is Stefani Germanotta, in March 2025, claiming her use of Mayhem for an album, tour, and merchandise infringed trademark rights the California surf company has asserted in the name for decades.

The company also challenged a stylized red Mayhem logo used in Gaga's campaign, arguing it resembled branding associated with its surfboards and clothing and could lead consumers to believe the two were connected.

Olguin rejected that argument twice.

In December, the judge denied Lost's request for a preliminary injunctionpreliminary injunctionA preliminary injunction is a temporary court order issued before a case is finally decided that requires a party to take or stop an action while the litigation continues. Federal courts generally consider the likelihood of success, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest before granting one.Read more → that would have barred Gaga from using the name while the case proceeded. He later dismissed the lawsuit, finding the company had not plausibly alleged that Gaga explicitly misled consumers into believing Lost was behind or affiliated with her work.

The First Amendment played a central role in both rulings because trademark claims involving expressive works such as music, films, and books receive greater protection when the use of a mark has artistic relevance and does not explicitly mislead consumers about who created the work.

Olguin found Lost's allegations "conclusory and insufficient" and said Gaga's use of the same word, by itself, was not enough to support the company's claims.

Gaga is now trying to turn that dismissal into a six-figure fee award.

Federal trademark law allows judges to award attorneys' fees to the winning side in an "exceptional" case. The designation is not automatic simply because one party loses. Courts may consider the weakness of a party's legal position and the way the litigation was pursued.

Gaga's attorneys argue Lost meets that standard on both grounds.

They contend the company continued litigating for another nine months after losing its request for an injunction and repeatedly sought a full-day deposition of Gaga while she was on an international tour.

Snyder argued that forcing Gaga into a full-day deposition during an international tour was designed to make continued litigation more expensive and disruptive than settling.

"The burden was the point," he wrote.

The fee motion also attacks the basic premise of Lost's case, arguing that consumers were unlikely to confuse merchandise from a Lady Gaga stadium tour with products sold by a Southern California surf company.

Lost had maintained that its trademark rights extended beyond surfboards and into apparel, placing some of its products in the same broad category as Gaga's tour merchandise.

The company's attorney, Keith G. Bremer, said after the August dismissal that Lost "respectfully disagree[d]" with the ruling and intended to appeal.

An appeal would challenge the dismissal itself. Gaga's new request presents a separate question for Olguin: whether Lost's unsuccessful case was sufficiently unusual or unreasonable to make the company responsible for her legal bill.

The judge has not yet ruled on the $232,484 request.