Taylor Swift is urging a federal judge to dismiss a trademark lawsuit over “The Life of a Showgirl” as “nonsensical,” even after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office previously refused an application for the title based on Maren Wade’s existing “Confessions of a Showgirl” registration.
In new court filings, Swift’s attorneys argue there is no plausible chance consumers would believe Wade’s cabaret performances, podcast, or book are connected to the global pop star. They also contend Swift’s album is a protected expressive work and challenge whether the Los Angeles federal court has jurisdiction over her at all.
Wade, whose legal name is Maren Flagg, sued Swift and several related companies in March over her federally registered “Confessions of a Showgirl” trademark. She began using the phrase for a Las Vegas Weekly column in 2014 before expanding it into live performances, a touring production, a book and a podcast.
Her case relies in part on a trademark theory known as reverse confusion. Wade alleges Swift’s much larger commercial presence has overwhelmed her earlier mark to the point that consumers may associate “Confessions of a Showgirl” with Swift rather than recognizing Wade as the earlier user.
Swift’s lawyers reject that premise. In a 16-page reply filed this week, attorney Max N. Wellman and his co-counsel at Venable argued that the differences between the two sides make meaningful consumer confusion implausible.
They also maintain that “The Life of a Showgirl” is the title of an expressive work entitled to heightened protection and argue that shirts and other album merchandise are a natural extension of that work rather than separate infringing uses of Wade’s mark.
Wade alleges the merchandise extends the disputed title into commercial products beyond the album itself, bringing Swift’s use closer to the type of branding she says conflicts with her registration.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office previously refused an application to register “The Life of a Showgirl” after finding a likelihood of confusion with Wade’s existing “Confessions of a Showgirl” mark. The application remains suspended.
The refusal does not determine whether Swift infringed Wade’s trademark. A federal court applies its own legal standards to the claims before it, but Wade cites the trademark office’s decision as support for her argument that the similarity between the marks presents a genuine dispute.
Swift’s attorneys argue California’s Unfair Competition Law cannot be extended to Wade, a Nevada resident, under the circumstances alleged. The defense says she has failed to identify authority supporting a claim based solely on alleged trademark infringement.
The defense also challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction over Swift, who lives in Tennessee. Wade has tried to connect the alleged infringement to California through Swift’s appearance at the 2026 iHeartRadio Music Awards.
Wade argued that Swift promoted the album while accepting an award in California. The defense called the idea that an awards-show acceptance speech amounted to advertising “absurd” and says the appearance does not establish the necessary connection between Swift and the state.
At a May hearing, Swift attorney J. Douglas Baldridge accused Wade of capitalizing on the album announcement before suing, pointing to her use of Swift-related hashtags and invitations for followers to join her “Showgirl era.” He argued Wade spent months benefiting from the association rather than treating it as a threat to her trademark.
Wade’s attorney, Jaymie Parkkinen, countered that his client had spent 12 years building the “Confessions of a Showgirl” identity and holds what he described as an incontestable federal registration. He contrasted Wade’s single brand with the extensive trademark portfolio and marketing resources available to Swift and co-defendants UMG Recordings and Bravado.
Parkkinen argued that Swift’s much larger commercial operation magnified the harm Wade says she suffered. Swift’s attorneys maintain that commercial size alone does not establish trademark infringement and that Wade still must plausibly allege consumer confusion.
Swift and the other defendants are asking the court to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, which would prevent Wade from revising the same claims again in the trial court. The motion is scheduled for an Oct. 7 hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
