Taylor Swift says that cabaret performer Maren Flagg, who writes and performs under the banner ‘Confessions Of A Showgirl’, can’t claim that she has been commercially harmed by Swift releasing an album titled ‘The Life Of A Showgirl’. Because as soon as Swift announced the release of that record, Flagg tried to cash in big time on the similar names.
Responding to a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Flagg, Swift’s lawyers write, “far from showing any concern about the album after its announcement, Ms Flagg spent several months centring her brand” on the “name, artwork, music and lyrics” of Swift’s album to “promote her little-known cabaret show”.
And “a mere four days” after the title and artwork for ‘The Life Of A Showgirl’ was revealed in 2025, Flagg “announced a brand-new podcast mimicking Ms Swift’s album artwork, logo, title and taglines”, before “flooding her Instagram and TikTok pages with 40+ advertisements for her brand using Ms Swift’s music, trademarks and other intellectual property without permission”.
Flagg began writing a column called ‘Confessions Of A Showgirl’ for the Las Vegas Weekly in 2014, documenting her life working as a cabaret performer. She subsequently used that name for a stage show, book and podcast, and in 2015 she registered it as a trademark in the US.
In her own legal filing, Flagg says that, “for more than a decade”, the ‘Confessions Of A Showgirl’ brand “identified a single source” and “a search for it returned one person”.
But after Swift released her record with a similar but not identical name, Google searches for ‘Confessions Of A Showgirl’ linked to much more content about Swift than Flagg. And Swift's fans, she claims, started using ‘Confessions Of A Showgirl’ as a hashtag when talking about the pop star.
Plus, of course, Swift is the queen of merch, using her album's title well beyond the record itself. Which meant the album title “appeared on drink tumblers, candles, hairbrushes and garment tags”, among many other things, alongside the record’s release, Flagg claims.
And Swift’s IP company TAS Rights Management began the process of trademarking ‘The Life Of A Showgirl’, seeking exclusive use of the name on “everything from disposable napkins to ponchos”.
Once that trademark registration was underway, the US Trademark Office suspended Swift’s application because of the “likelihood of confusion” with Flagg’s existing ‘Confessions Of A Showgirl’ trademark. A development relied on heavily in Flagg’s subsequent lawsuit.
The confusion predicted by the Trademark Office “has materialised”, it claims, adding “this is textbook reverse confusion”, which is where the commercial dominance of a new user of a brand displaces the previous user, so that “consumers come to believe the originator is the imitator”.
Flagg has asked the courts in California to issue a permanent injunction stopping Swift and her business partners, including Universal Music and its Bravado merch business, from using the ‘Life Of A Showgirl’ brand, on the basis it’s confusingly similar to her ‘Confessions Of A Showgirl’ trademark.
That would be a major hassle for Swift because, not only would she have to destroy a load of merch, she’d technically have to re-release her record under another name.
Flagg also wants a preliminary injunction forcing that ban immediately, while the lawsuit goes through the motions, and - of course - lots of damages. In their new filing this week, Swift’s lawyers are specifically responding to the request for a temporary injunction. Obviously they urge the judge to not issue any such order, insisting that Flagg “cannot show likelihood of success on her trademark claims”.
That’s partly because Swift’s album title and accompanying promotional content and goods are “expressive works” protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which means the “traditional likelihood of confusion test” in US trademark law is not relevant.
But even if it was, they add, ‘The Life Of A Showgirl’ and ‘Confessions Of A Showgirl' are “not confusingly similar”, and “it is beyond the bounds of reason that consumers would believe” that Flagg’s ‘Confessions Of A Showgirl’ trademark and cabaret shows “are in any way affiliated with Taylor Swift or her album”.
And, of course, they insist that - by seeking to capitalise on the similarities between the two names for her own benefit - Flagg can’t show she suffered any harm from Swift’s album release and campaign.
To that end the court should reject Flagg’s motion for a temporary injunction now, and then - of course - throw out her whole lawsuit in due course.