WEBVTT - Don’t F*ck With Taylor Swift!

0:00:02.160 --> 0:00:02.840
<v Speaker 1>And the folks did.

0:00:02.880 --> 0:00:08.600
<v Speaker 2>Is Friday, May eighth, and Taylor Swift has just delivered

0:00:08.680 --> 0:00:13.320
<v Speaker 2>a legal lol if you've ever seen one, in response

0:00:13.840 --> 0:00:16.600
<v Speaker 2>to being sued over her.

0:00:16.560 --> 0:00:18.240
<v Speaker 1>Life of a Showgirl album.

0:00:18.280 --> 0:00:21.000
<v Speaker 3>And with that, Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ,

0:00:21.200 --> 0:00:24.120
<v Speaker 3>in which I cannot believe I am saying my favorite

0:00:24.120 --> 0:00:24.920
<v Speaker 3>story of the day.

0:00:24.960 --> 0:00:28.440
<v Speaker 1>It's a Taylor Swift story. Robes. I've told you this

0:00:28.760 --> 0:00:29.680
<v Speaker 1>first thing this morning.

0:00:29.840 --> 0:00:32.200
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, and I already wrote the title for this episode

0:00:32.280 --> 0:00:35.600
<v Speaker 4>based on something you said the moment you got into

0:00:35.720 --> 0:00:39.320
<v Speaker 4>reading all of the articles written about this, you said,

0:00:39.440 --> 0:00:41.800
<v Speaker 4>don't f with Taylor Swift.

0:00:41.880 --> 0:00:46.080
<v Speaker 5>Don't don't she will bite back.

0:00:47.159 --> 0:00:50.880
<v Speaker 1>This is it's legal. She's being protected.

0:00:50.960 --> 0:00:53.320
<v Speaker 3>But some of the language in here and the direction

0:00:53.440 --> 0:00:56.000
<v Speaker 3>they went and how hard they went and all this

0:00:56.120 --> 0:00:58.639
<v Speaker 3>is her lawyers, and you know she's as protected as anybody.

0:00:58.920 --> 0:01:01.240
<v Speaker 3>It just makes it fast and also fascinating.

0:01:01.280 --> 0:01:01.480
<v Speaker 1>Roads.

0:01:01.520 --> 0:01:05.200
<v Speaker 3>This is all over the idea of copyright infringement. And

0:01:05.240 --> 0:01:09.800
<v Speaker 3>she is the most notorious protector of her copyright.

0:01:10.040 --> 0:01:12.600
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, she's been in the news over the last few

0:01:12.680 --> 0:01:15.920
<v Speaker 4>years trying to get her own damn music back and

0:01:16.080 --> 0:01:18.440
<v Speaker 4>control it. She even went so far as to re

0:01:18.440 --> 0:01:22.840
<v Speaker 4>record it. Yes, so she knows probably more than anyone

0:01:23.040 --> 0:01:28.520
<v Speaker 4>how important ownership of your own property it's and in

0:01:28.560 --> 0:01:31.319
<v Speaker 4>this case, well, let's just say her lawyers are very

0:01:31.360 --> 0:01:32.640
<v Speaker 4>well versed as well.

0:01:32.480 --> 0:01:34.760
<v Speaker 3>Yes, cause they're calling bs on a lawsuit that was

0:01:34.760 --> 0:01:38.520
<v Speaker 3>brought by a former Vegas showgirl. She claims that Taylor

0:01:38.560 --> 0:01:43.840
<v Speaker 3>Swift's latest album infringes on her trademark and rose we

0:01:43.959 --> 0:01:47.680
<v Speaker 3>covered this initially in the morning run in talking about

0:01:47.720 --> 0:01:49.720
<v Speaker 3>this story, and we thought it was a stretch, like

0:01:49.760 --> 0:01:52.600
<v Speaker 3>are you kidding? The two names aren't the same. You

0:01:52.720 --> 0:01:56.560
<v Speaker 3>all clearly aren't competing and on the same level after

0:01:56.640 --> 0:02:00.360
<v Speaker 3>the same audience. But at least we listen to the

0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:02.120
<v Speaker 3>idea and wanted to be open to the idea that

0:02:02.120 --> 0:02:04.280
<v Speaker 3>there were merits to her lawsuit.

0:02:04.400 --> 0:02:07.760
<v Speaker 4>Yes, so this is a woman named Maren Flagg. She

0:02:07.960 --> 0:02:12.119
<v Speaker 4>filed this original lawsuit back in March, where the lawsuit

0:02:12.160 --> 0:02:16.240
<v Speaker 4>claims that Taylor Swift's albums quote shared the same structure,

0:02:16.680 --> 0:02:20.920
<v Speaker 4>same dominant impression, and same overall commercial impression. Both are

0:02:21.040 --> 0:02:26.600
<v Speaker 4>used in overlapping markets and are directed at the same customers.

0:02:27.200 --> 0:02:34.680
<v Speaker 4>It's because her Maren Flags show, or just what she does.

0:02:35.080 --> 0:02:37.520
<v Speaker 4>She calls it confessions of a Showgirl.

0:02:37.639 --> 0:02:40.320
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, and she trademarked it back in the day. She's

0:02:40.320 --> 0:02:44.600
<v Speaker 3>had that trademark since twenty fifteen, Confessions of a Showgirl.

0:02:44.639 --> 0:02:46.760
<v Speaker 3>She has a newsletter she's been doing for a long time,

0:02:46.919 --> 0:02:50.080
<v Speaker 3>she has a cabaret sho and she also has this podcast.

0:02:50.400 --> 0:02:54.440
<v Speaker 3>All of those things have Confessions of a Showgirl attached

0:02:54.480 --> 0:02:57.200
<v Speaker 3>to it. Oh and, by the way, Taylor Swift did

0:02:57.280 --> 0:03:01.560
<v Speaker 3>attempt to trademark Life of a Showhirl, but was rejected

0:03:02.200 --> 0:03:06.960
<v Speaker 3>because it was too similar to Confessions of a Showgirl.

0:03:07.200 --> 0:03:09.560
<v Speaker 3>That could be key legally later, but just wanted to

0:03:09.600 --> 0:03:10.239
<v Speaker 3>mention that.

0:03:10.520 --> 0:03:10.919
<v Speaker 1>All right.

0:03:11.040 --> 0:03:16.919
<v Speaker 4>So then, when you have basically Maren's statement about why

0:03:16.960 --> 0:03:21.040
<v Speaker 4>this is so important, she talks specifically about how similar

0:03:21.080 --> 0:03:23.239
<v Speaker 4>the two are and how confusing it is. So here

0:03:23.320 --> 0:03:27.120
<v Speaker 4>is what her attorney stated. Maren spent more than a

0:03:27.240 --> 0:03:30.800
<v Speaker 4>decade building Confessions of a Showgirl. She registered it, she

0:03:30.960 --> 0:03:34.160
<v Speaker 4>earned it. When Taylor Swift's team applied to register the

0:03:34.240 --> 0:03:37.960
<v Speaker 4>Life of a Showgirl, the trademark office refused, finding Swift's

0:03:37.960 --> 0:03:41.560
<v Speaker 4>mark confusingly similar. We have great respect for Swift's talent

0:03:41.600 --> 0:03:45.200
<v Speaker 4>and success, but trademark law exists to ensure that creators

0:03:45.240 --> 0:03:47.320
<v Speaker 4>at all levels can protect what they built.

0:03:47.760 --> 0:03:50.680
<v Speaker 5>That's what this case is about. I'm curious.

0:03:51.960 --> 0:03:55.320
<v Speaker 4>Could Marin and her legal name is Maren Wade even

0:03:55.360 --> 0:03:57.960
<v Speaker 4>though her no, sorry, her stage name is Maren Wade,

0:03:58.000 --> 0:04:00.640
<v Speaker 4>even though her real name is Maren Flagg. But could

0:04:00.680 --> 0:04:04.200
<v Speaker 4>she have been could her team of attorneys been alerted

0:04:04.680 --> 0:04:07.640
<v Speaker 4>to the fact that Taylor Swift was trying to get

0:04:07.640 --> 0:04:10.680
<v Speaker 4>a trademark similar to hers, and that could have sparked

0:04:10.720 --> 0:04:12.120
<v Speaker 4>the idea for a lawsuit.

0:04:12.720 --> 0:04:14.840
<v Speaker 3>I don't know if they that's a good question. I

0:04:14.880 --> 0:04:16.960
<v Speaker 3>don't know if they give you a heads up. Hey,

0:04:17.080 --> 0:04:19.680
<v Speaker 3>somebody is trying to I mean, I assume people try

0:04:19.720 --> 0:04:22.120
<v Speaker 3>and they fail all the time every day trying to

0:04:22.160 --> 0:04:23.800
<v Speaker 3>trademark something that's already trademarked.

0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:24.279
<v Speaker 1>So maybe not.

0:04:24.520 --> 0:04:27.280
<v Speaker 4>We can't even probably mark our own names at this

0:04:27.360 --> 0:04:29.120
<v Speaker 4>point because someone else has beaten us to it.

0:04:29.160 --> 0:04:31.520
<v Speaker 5>Certainly with the race to getting a website.

0:04:31.560 --> 0:04:34.960
<v Speaker 4>People steal famous people's names all the time, so that

0:04:35.040 --> 0:04:37.520
<v Speaker 4>could I don't know how much of an heads up

0:04:37.520 --> 0:04:38.479
<v Speaker 4>you get about any of that.

0:04:38.720 --> 0:04:41.680
<v Speaker 3>But they didn't get one and maybe didn't want one

0:04:41.839 --> 0:04:47.240
<v Speaker 3>until the Life of a Showgirl became the biggest album

0:04:47.320 --> 0:04:50.640
<v Speaker 3>in history. I do believe so all of this happened

0:04:50.640 --> 0:04:52.480
<v Speaker 3>and rose. When we first heard the story, we thought

0:04:52.520 --> 0:04:55.160
<v Speaker 3>it was a stretch, this little thing going on in

0:04:55.279 --> 0:04:58.760
<v Speaker 3>Las Vegas. No disrespect to her, but she's a smaller

0:04:59.120 --> 0:05:02.839
<v Speaker 3>town performer in any comparison. Even though though the names

0:05:02.839 --> 0:05:05.160
<v Speaker 3>weren't even the same, Life of a Showgirl Confessions of

0:05:05.200 --> 0:05:06.760
<v Speaker 3>a Showgirl, I didn't think.

0:05:06.560 --> 0:05:07.719
<v Speaker 1>They are similar. Yeah.

0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:08.960
<v Speaker 5>I wouldn't have thought so either.

0:05:09.000 --> 0:05:11.320
<v Speaker 4>And it is a little shocking to hear that Taylor

0:05:11.360 --> 0:05:16.560
<v Speaker 4>Swift's application for a trademark didn't go through because of

0:05:16.600 --> 0:05:17.800
<v Speaker 4>this smaller operation.

0:05:18.720 --> 0:05:24.560
<v Speaker 3>So okay, but man, her attorneys have now turned this

0:05:24.640 --> 0:05:27.080
<v Speaker 3>story in Robes. There were some things we didn't understand

0:05:27.160 --> 0:05:29.680
<v Speaker 3>when we first heard about the lawsuit, but they are

0:05:29.720 --> 0:05:32.640
<v Speaker 3>pointing out they have gone after this woman in such

0:05:32.680 --> 0:05:35.920
<v Speaker 3>a way that is brutal in a court filing. And

0:05:36.000 --> 0:05:39.479
<v Speaker 3>they are saying, Robes that she is the one who

0:05:39.560 --> 0:05:44.480
<v Speaker 3>was infringing on Taylor Swift's album, and she was the

0:05:44.480 --> 0:05:47.800
<v Speaker 3>one trying to use Taylor Swift's album to prop up

0:05:47.920 --> 0:05:49.800
<v Speaker 3>her own brand.

0:05:50.080 --> 0:05:51.640
<v Speaker 1>So how are you gonna come and sue us?

0:05:51.680 --> 0:05:51.880
<v Speaker 2>Now?

0:05:52.000 --> 0:05:54.760
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, Oftentimes the best defense is an offense, correct, and

0:05:54.760 --> 0:05:57.640
<v Speaker 4>that's exactly what Taylor Swift's attorneys are doing here in

0:05:57.720 --> 0:06:00.000
<v Speaker 4>their response to this lawsuit.

0:06:00.120 --> 0:06:03.480
<v Speaker 3>But the response was direct, not quite You know, it

0:06:03.560 --> 0:06:05.680
<v Speaker 3>was insulting without being insulting.

0:06:05.920 --> 0:06:07.839
<v Speaker 5>Well, you were laughing out loud as you were reading it.

0:06:07.960 --> 0:06:11.240
<v Speaker 3>They were essentially saying, Robes that you're saying that you

0:06:11.360 --> 0:06:15.400
<v Speaker 3>all mark it to similar audiences and do similar things,

0:06:15.480 --> 0:06:18.800
<v Speaker 3>and in some way the audience is gonna get your

0:06:19.120 --> 0:06:24.120
<v Speaker 3>confessions of a showgirl confused with life of a showgirl,

0:06:25.000 --> 0:06:28.360
<v Speaker 3>and they will say it in just the most eloquent

0:06:28.920 --> 0:06:29.599
<v Speaker 3>legal fashion.

0:06:29.800 --> 0:06:33.839
<v Speaker 4>Yes, here's what Taylor's attorney said. Plaintiff attempts to broadly

0:06:33.920 --> 0:06:38.680
<v Speaker 4>lump her cabaret sho and defendant's musical album together as

0:06:38.839 --> 0:06:46.040
<v Speaker 4>quote entertainment services. That comparison is absurd. Flag performs if

0:06:46.120 --> 0:06:50.760
<v Speaker 4>at all, in small intimate venues such as a fifty

0:06:50.800 --> 0:06:55.239
<v Speaker 4>five plus active community, fifty five plus golf resort RV

0:06:55.480 --> 0:07:00.520
<v Speaker 4>and golf resort, ninety seat cabaret style venue that offers dinner, hotel,

0:07:00.600 --> 0:07:04.520
<v Speaker 4>and private supper club. And then they added, just for

0:07:04.560 --> 0:07:08.520
<v Speaker 4>the fun of it, her website lists no upcoming performances.

0:07:08.839 --> 0:07:11.280
<v Speaker 1>Why private supper club gets me private.

0:07:11.000 --> 0:07:13.680
<v Speaker 4>Supper clubs because you get an idea of just look

0:07:14.120 --> 0:07:17.440
<v Speaker 4>to not use a proper legal terma like a rinky

0:07:17.560 --> 0:07:20.920
<v Speaker 4>dink venue, and that's kind of what they're referring to,

0:07:20.960 --> 0:07:26.840
<v Speaker 4>this very small time rinky dink audience in small supper clubs.

0:07:27.840 --> 0:07:30.960
<v Speaker 4>No one's getting it confused with Taylor Swift and if

0:07:31.000 --> 0:07:33.840
<v Speaker 4>they do good for her, actually.

0:07:33.480 --> 0:07:38.480
<v Speaker 3>Good for her, and she Robes certainly thought that would

0:07:38.520 --> 0:07:43.160
<v Speaker 3>be good for her, according to Swift's attorneys, and according

0:07:43.200 --> 0:07:45.320
<v Speaker 3>to stuff that's been out there that you could go

0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:50.440
<v Speaker 3>easily verify. Apparently Robes this woman has for a long time,

0:07:50.560 --> 0:07:53.800
<v Speaker 3>since we first heard and saw the art and the

0:07:53.880 --> 0:07:59.360
<v Speaker 3>title of this album, has been trying to attach herself to.

0:07:59.360 --> 0:08:01.480
<v Speaker 5>Life of a show Yes, Taylor's attorneys say.

0:08:01.480 --> 0:08:06.520
<v Speaker 4>Since the album announcement, Plaintiff has reframed her brand around

0:08:06.640 --> 0:08:10.480
<v Speaker 4>the album, flooding her social media accounts with posts attempting

0:08:10.520 --> 0:08:14.200
<v Speaker 4>to align herself with Miss Swift and the album. Prior

0:08:14.280 --> 0:08:18.320
<v Speaker 4>to the album announcement, Playtoniff never used the Life of

0:08:18.360 --> 0:08:22.280
<v Speaker 4>a Showgirl in her social media promotion. Following the announcement,

0:08:22.480 --> 0:08:25.720
<v Speaker 4>Plaintiff used the phrase or posted generally about Miss Swift

0:08:25.840 --> 0:08:30.120
<v Speaker 4>or the album over forty times on her branded Instagram

0:08:30.160 --> 0:08:31.080
<v Speaker 4>and TikTok.

0:08:30.680 --> 0:08:33.280
<v Speaker 1>Accounts, Okay, that doesn't sound good, not at all.

0:08:33.800 --> 0:08:36.400
<v Speaker 4>No, And in fact, they go on even further to say,

0:08:36.440 --> 0:08:39.719
<v Speaker 4>far from showing any concern about the album. After its announcement,

0:08:40.000 --> 0:08:44.160
<v Speaker 4>Miss Flagg spent several months centering her brand on the

0:08:44.240 --> 0:08:47.880
<v Speaker 4>life of a showgirl's name, artwork, music, and lyrics to

0:08:47.960 --> 0:08:52.720
<v Speaker 4>promote her little known cabaret show. In fact, a mere

0:08:52.840 --> 0:08:56.720
<v Speaker 4>four days after Miss Swift announced her album title and artwork,

0:08:56.760 --> 0:08:59.599
<v Speaker 4>in August of twenty twenty five, Miss Flag announced a

0:09:00.400 --> 0:09:07.160
<v Speaker 4>new podcast mimicking Miss Swift's album artwork, logo, title, and taglines.

0:09:07.600 --> 0:09:11.200
<v Speaker 4>Then plaintive flood at her Instagram and TikTok pages with

0:09:11.320 --> 0:09:16.160
<v Speaker 4>forty plus advertisements for her brand using Miss Swift's music,

0:09:16.679 --> 0:09:21.520
<v Speaker 4>trademarks and other intellectual property without permission road.

0:09:21.880 --> 0:09:26.040
<v Speaker 3>I mean it's hilarious outuch. Will a judge listen to that?

0:09:26.200 --> 0:09:28.760
<v Speaker 3>Like just because she tried to use it? Like, is

0:09:28.800 --> 0:09:31.200
<v Speaker 3>that enough to say, get out of my court, wasting

0:09:31.240 --> 0:09:31.640
<v Speaker 3>my time?

0:09:31.920 --> 0:09:32.600
<v Speaker 5>I think I don't.

0:09:33.000 --> 0:09:36.840
<v Speaker 4>It's she tried to use it to her benefit and

0:09:36.880 --> 0:09:39.680
<v Speaker 4>now she's trying to somehow claim it's hurt her.

0:09:39.920 --> 0:09:40.880
<v Speaker 5>That's the problem.

0:09:41.080 --> 0:09:47.400
<v Speaker 4>How do you use and try to take basically a

0:09:47.559 --> 0:09:50.640
<v Speaker 4>similar name to your advantage and then claim that that

0:09:51.040 --> 0:09:54.120
<v Speaker 4>similar name has brought you some sort of disadvantage.

0:09:54.200 --> 0:09:58.040
<v Speaker 3>It's amazing that you just took the conversation there.

0:09:58.920 --> 0:09:59.760
<v Speaker 1>Stay with us.

0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:04.000
<v Speaker 3>I'm going to answer that question, and it's an argument,

0:10:04.200 --> 0:10:09.280
<v Speaker 3>Robes that many say the former Vegas show girl has

0:10:09.360 --> 0:10:20.760
<v Speaker 3>an upside on. Stay here, all right, Welcome back to

0:10:20.840 --> 0:10:23.520
<v Speaker 3>this episode of Amy and TJ. I have been wiping

0:10:23.559 --> 0:10:25.920
<v Speaker 3>tears out of my eyes. Robeses giving me a hard time.

0:10:26.000 --> 0:10:27.880
<v Speaker 5>He actually is still wiping tears.

0:10:27.960 --> 0:10:30.440
<v Speaker 4>He every time you say supper club, he just starts

0:10:30.559 --> 0:10:33.080
<v Speaker 4>laughing so hard he can't stop.

0:10:33.280 --> 0:10:37.240
<v Speaker 3>It's so ridiculous because I find I can see the

0:10:37.400 --> 0:10:40.400
<v Speaker 3>pettiness in it, and I see the sarcasm, and I

0:10:40.440 --> 0:10:45.000
<v Speaker 3>appreciate they listed something factual that still made their point.

0:10:45.360 --> 0:10:48.640
<v Speaker 3>Are you kidding me? You think somebody's going to confuse

0:10:48.760 --> 0:10:50.520
<v Speaker 3>you with this woman?

0:10:50.960 --> 0:10:53.360
<v Speaker 5>And if they do, that's only going to help you?

0:10:53.840 --> 0:10:56.360
<v Speaker 3>Oh man, Okay, I don't know why this story is

0:10:56.440 --> 0:10:58.199
<v Speaker 3>so hilarious to me, But Rose, I want to pick

0:10:58.240 --> 0:11:01.600
<v Speaker 3>up on the point you were making, Like, what argument

0:11:01.679 --> 0:11:03.400
<v Speaker 3>can you try to make?

0:11:03.480 --> 0:11:06.319
<v Speaker 1>Isn't this only beneficial to yes?

0:11:06.520 --> 0:11:09.000
<v Speaker 4>Your celebrif you would want to be confused with Taylor Swift,

0:11:09.080 --> 0:11:11.760
<v Speaker 4>if people thought that you were in some way affiliated

0:11:11.800 --> 0:11:14.600
<v Speaker 4>with her, that would only help your brand, one would think.

0:11:14.679 --> 0:11:15.520
<v Speaker 1>One would think.

0:11:15.920 --> 0:11:18.160
<v Speaker 3>But some will make the argument and she will that

0:11:18.200 --> 0:11:22.080
<v Speaker 3>it goes the opposite way that yes, Taylor Swift is

0:11:22.160 --> 0:11:27.400
<v Speaker 3>hurting her brand because this happens that there are times

0:11:27.440 --> 0:11:34.760
<v Speaker 3>where the imitator outdoes the original. So now Taylor Swift

0:11:35.120 --> 0:11:40.000
<v Speaker 3>has overwhelmed the world with this phrase life of a showgirl.

0:11:40.320 --> 0:11:45.120
<v Speaker 3>That diminishes her brand or her ability to get seen

0:11:45.280 --> 0:11:48.560
<v Speaker 3>as anything on her own. Now there might be a stretch,

0:11:48.559 --> 0:11:50.440
<v Speaker 3>it might be better examples out there of it, But

0:11:50.679 --> 0:11:53.280
<v Speaker 3>that's a thing that is talked about in these cases.

0:11:53.320 --> 0:11:57.480
<v Speaker 3>Did the imitator become bigger than the original? And you

0:11:57.520 --> 0:12:00.440
<v Speaker 3>can make an argument, h she certainly the hit.

0:12:00.840 --> 0:12:02.240
<v Speaker 5>She's tried to at least.

0:12:02.400 --> 0:12:06.520
<v Speaker 4>And look, Taylor Swift's team has already, as we've kind

0:12:06.559 --> 0:12:10.880
<v Speaker 4>of alluded to, on going on the defense, is considering

0:12:10.960 --> 0:12:13.840
<v Speaker 4>going on the offense because they are now saying that

0:12:13.960 --> 0:12:17.199
<v Speaker 4>they may file their own lawsuit against this woman, saying

0:12:17.320 --> 0:12:22.240
<v Speaker 4>each of these advertisements constitutes actionable infringement and they will

0:12:22.320 --> 0:12:25.120
<v Speaker 4>be pursuing appropriate remedies for that. So with the very

0:12:25.200 --> 0:12:28.599
<v Speaker 4>least there's going to be a conversation between legal teams.

0:12:28.960 --> 0:12:31.920
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, that could mean a lot of stuff appropriate remedies

0:12:33.080 --> 0:12:35.079
<v Speaker 3>to that. This is an incredible five. But yeah, that's

0:12:35.080 --> 0:12:40.000
<v Speaker 3>her production team that they plan on going after this

0:12:40.080 --> 0:12:41.960
<v Speaker 3>woman for. I forgot to mention it. I haven't listed.

0:12:41.960 --> 0:12:46.679
<v Speaker 3>But in addition to Maren Flag and all of her

0:12:47.440 --> 0:12:52.199
<v Speaker 3>Instagram posts and changing her artwork, she literally used these hashtags,

0:12:53.000 --> 0:12:57.360
<v Speaker 3>literally use those in her posts to get attention.

0:12:57.520 --> 0:13:02.439
<v Speaker 4>So in her Instagram posts, she puts hashtag Swifties, hashtag

0:13:02.520 --> 0:13:05.320
<v Speaker 4>Taylor Swift, hoping that, yes, when you have an algorithm

0:13:05.600 --> 0:13:08.720
<v Speaker 4>you're looking for a search you are a Taylor Swift fan,

0:13:09.040 --> 0:13:12.400
<v Speaker 4>that her post would come up, and she's hoping I

0:13:12.400 --> 0:13:15.360
<v Speaker 4>would argue, and I think perhaps many courts might agree,

0:13:15.400 --> 0:13:18.040
<v Speaker 4>or certainly the judge looking at this case, that is

0:13:18.240 --> 0:13:22.679
<v Speaker 4>completely and totally negating your lawsuit because if you are

0:13:22.800 --> 0:13:28.720
<v Speaker 4>trying to use any potential confusion between those two titles

0:13:28.760 --> 0:13:31.560
<v Speaker 4>Confession of a Showgirl, Life of a Showgirl to your

0:13:31.679 --> 0:13:36.520
<v Speaker 4>advantage by hashtagging Swifties, hashtagging Taylor Swift, so that people

0:13:36.520 --> 0:13:39.600
<v Speaker 4>who love Taylor Swift will also see your brand and

0:13:39.640 --> 0:13:42.960
<v Speaker 4>what you're offering. You can't then say you're being hurt

0:13:43.000 --> 0:13:47.079
<v Speaker 4>by it. You were deliberately trying to be helped because

0:13:47.080 --> 0:13:47.440
<v Speaker 4>of it.

0:13:48.080 --> 0:13:53.280
<v Speaker 1>Hoping to right. The other thing here is Lady Gaga.

0:13:53.280 --> 0:13:55.000
<v Speaker 3>I want to mention she did have this issue with

0:13:55.080 --> 0:13:58.400
<v Speaker 3>a surf shop somewhere that took issue with the album

0:13:58.520 --> 0:14:01.400
<v Speaker 3>art she had for Mayhem. He just won that suit.

0:14:01.440 --> 0:14:03.360
<v Speaker 3>It had a lot to do with them using that

0:14:03.440 --> 0:14:06.560
<v Speaker 3>as merchandizing. Didn't want her to be able to sell

0:14:06.640 --> 0:14:09.839
<v Speaker 3>merchandising with that on it, But she won that case.

0:14:09.880 --> 0:14:12.120
<v Speaker 3>These are high bars. The other thing, they have something

0:14:12.160 --> 0:14:15.079
<v Speaker 3>called the Rogers test. I learned a lot about trademark

0:14:15.120 --> 0:14:18.319
<v Speaker 3>today ropes something called the Rogers test to where they

0:14:18.360 --> 0:14:22.200
<v Speaker 3>give more freedom of expression for art like album covers,

0:14:22.600 --> 0:14:26.120
<v Speaker 3>to where you can't she not taking your whole brand

0:14:26.120 --> 0:14:28.640
<v Speaker 3>and building another one off of it. It's just how

0:14:28.680 --> 0:14:31.800
<v Speaker 3>she wants to decorate her art and the expression in

0:14:31.880 --> 0:14:32.560
<v Speaker 3>one phrase.

0:14:32.880 --> 0:14:34.320
<v Speaker 1>Wow. So that's another thing.

0:14:34.360 --> 0:14:36.800
<v Speaker 4>And is this, honestly, I mean, I'm just curious. Is

0:14:36.840 --> 0:14:39.600
<v Speaker 4>this the cost of being a highly successful artist?

0:14:39.760 --> 0:14:40.120
<v Speaker 5>Period?

0:14:40.200 --> 0:14:41.120
<v Speaker 1>They get sued every day.

0:14:41.240 --> 0:14:44.920
<v Speaker 4>People just see an opportunity to try and get something

0:14:44.960 --> 0:14:47.280
<v Speaker 4>from them, get something because of them. And it's a

0:14:47.320 --> 0:14:50.080
<v Speaker 4>sad state of where we are, just these frivolous lawsuits,

0:14:50.680 --> 0:14:53.120
<v Speaker 4>and there's always seems like attorney's willing to take up

0:14:53.120 --> 0:14:54.840
<v Speaker 4>the cause to see if they can get some sort

0:14:54.840 --> 0:14:57.400
<v Speaker 4>of a payday or maybe even just a settlement from

0:14:57.440 --> 0:15:00.920
<v Speaker 4>these big artists because they think, hey, this is easy pickings.

0:15:00.960 --> 0:15:04.120
<v Speaker 4>We see literally an ATM when they look at some

0:15:04.160 --> 0:15:07.080
<v Speaker 4>of these stars, they see an ATM. That's sad because

0:15:07.080 --> 0:15:10.680
<v Speaker 4>this certainly seems like this could be a part of that.

0:15:10.880 --> 0:15:13.600
<v Speaker 4>But I actually, and I know you have to appreciated

0:15:13.600 --> 0:15:16.760
<v Speaker 4>the fact that Taylor Swift's attorneys are taking this, doubling

0:15:16.800 --> 0:15:20.360
<v Speaker 4>down and throwing it right back and we shall see

0:15:20.360 --> 0:15:21.000
<v Speaker 4>where this lands.

0:15:21.040 --> 0:15:24.200
<v Speaker 3>Yes, she is asking for monetary services. The last thing, Rose,

0:15:24.240 --> 0:15:26.240
<v Speaker 3>I'm meant to pull this up for you and show

0:15:26.240 --> 0:15:28.800
<v Speaker 3>it to you. Taylor Swift has by some count I think,

0:15:28.840 --> 0:15:32.240
<v Speaker 3>one hundred and sixty trademarks on names.

0:15:32.600 --> 0:15:33.360
<v Speaker 1>This is the list.

0:15:33.400 --> 0:15:37.840
<v Speaker 3>She's even trademarked TS and it's specific for certain certain things.

0:15:38.400 --> 0:15:42.680
<v Speaker 3>The Life of a show Girl Swifty Swift Muss is

0:15:42.720 --> 0:15:49.600
<v Speaker 3>actually trademarked Wow, the Tortured Poets Department, Taylor Khn all

0:15:49.680 --> 0:15:50.280
<v Speaker 3>these things.

0:15:50.400 --> 0:15:52.280
<v Speaker 1>It's a long, long list.

0:15:52.440 --> 0:15:54.440
<v Speaker 5>This is this is what you have to do. That's

0:15:54.480 --> 0:15:57.240
<v Speaker 5>what you have to do to protect yourself. Wow, my goodness.

0:15:57.240 --> 0:15:59.640
<v Speaker 4>All right, well, I'm glad at least you got a

0:15:59.680 --> 0:16:02.920
<v Speaker 4>solid laugh, a belly laugh for two out of this one.

0:16:04.160 --> 0:16:06.600
<v Speaker 3>You don't find suffer clubs every day.

0:16:07.120 --> 0:16:10.240
<v Speaker 4>And with that everyone, we hope you enjoy the rest

0:16:10.240 --> 0:16:10.920
<v Speaker 4>of your day today.

0:16:10.960 --> 0:16:12.840
<v Speaker 5>I'm Aye Robot alongside TJ.

0:16:12.960 --> 0:16:13.400
<v Speaker 4>Holmes.

0:16:13.840 --> 0:16:14.640
<v Speaker 5>We'll talk soon.