Speaker 1: And the folks did.
Speaker 2: Is Friday, May eighth, and Taylor Swift has just delivered
Speaker 2: a legal lol if you've ever seen one, in response
Speaker 2: to being sued over her.
Speaker 1: Life of a Showgirl album.
Speaker 3: And with that, Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ,
Speaker 3: in which I cannot believe I am saying my favorite
Speaker 3: story of the day.
Speaker 1: It's a Taylor Swift story. Robes. I've told you this
Speaker 1: first thing this morning.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I already wrote the title for this episode
Speaker 4: based on something you said the moment you got into
Speaker 4: reading all of the articles written about this, you said,
Speaker 4: don't f with Taylor Swift.
Speaker 5: Don't don't she will bite back.
Speaker 1: This is it's legal. She's being protected.
Speaker 3: But some of the language in here and the direction
Speaker 3: they went and how hard they went and all this
Speaker 3: is her lawyers, and you know she's as protected as anybody.
Speaker 3: It just makes it fast and also fascinating.
Speaker 1: Roads.
Speaker 3: This is all over the idea of copyright infringement. And
Speaker 3: she is the most notorious protector of her copyright.
Speaker 4: Yeah, she's been in the news over the last few
Speaker 4: years trying to get her own damn music back and
Speaker 4: control it. She even went so far as to re
Speaker 4: record it. Yes, so she knows probably more than anyone
Speaker 4: how important ownership of your own property it's and in
Speaker 4: this case, well, let's just say her lawyers are very
Speaker 4: well versed as well.
Speaker 3: Yes, cause they're calling bs on a lawsuit that was
Speaker 3: brought by a former Vegas showgirl. She claims that Taylor
Speaker 3: Swift's latest album infringes on her trademark and rose we
Speaker 3: covered this initially in the morning run in talking about
Speaker 3: this story, and we thought it was a stretch, like
Speaker 3: are you kidding? The two names aren't the same. You
Speaker 3: all clearly aren't competing and on the same level after
Speaker 3: the same audience. But at least we listen to the
Speaker 3: idea and wanted to be open to the idea that
Speaker 3: there were merits to her lawsuit.
Speaker 4: Yes, so this is a woman named Maren Flagg. She
Speaker 4: filed this original lawsuit back in March, where the lawsuit
Speaker 4: claims that Taylor Swift's albums quote shared the same structure,
Speaker 4: same dominant impression, and same overall commercial impression. Both are
Speaker 4: used in overlapping markets and are directed at the same customers.
Speaker 4: It's because her Maren Flags show, or just what she does.
Speaker 4: She calls it confessions of a Showgirl.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and she trademarked it back in the day. She's
Speaker 3: had that trademark since twenty fifteen, Confessions of a Showgirl.
Speaker 3: She has a newsletter she's been doing for a long time,
Speaker 3: she has a cabaret sho and she also has this podcast.
Speaker 3: All of those things have Confessions of a Showgirl attached
Speaker 3: to it. Oh and, by the way, Taylor Swift did
Speaker 3: attempt to trademark Life of a Showhirl, but was rejected
Speaker 3: because it was too similar to Confessions of a Showgirl.
Speaker 3: That could be key legally later, but just wanted to
Speaker 3: mention that.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 4: So then, when you have basically Maren's statement about why
Speaker 4: this is so important, she talks specifically about how similar
Speaker 4: the two are and how confusing it is. So here
Speaker 4: is what her attorney stated. Maren spent more than a
Speaker 4: decade building Confessions of a Showgirl. She registered it, she
Speaker 4: earned it. When Taylor Swift's team applied to register the
Speaker 4: Life of a Showgirl, the trademark office refused, finding Swift's
Speaker 4: mark confusingly similar. We have great respect for Swift's talent
Speaker 4: and success, but trademark law exists to ensure that creators
Speaker 4: at all levels can protect what they built.
Speaker 5: That's what this case is about. I'm curious.
Speaker 4: Could Marin and her legal name is Maren Wade even
Speaker 4: though her no, sorry, her stage name is Maren Wade,
Speaker 4: even though her real name is Maren Flagg. But could
Speaker 4: she have been could her team of attorneys been alerted
Speaker 4: to the fact that Taylor Swift was trying to get
Speaker 4: a trademark similar to hers, and that could have sparked
Speaker 4: the idea for a lawsuit.
Speaker 3: I don't know if they that's a good question. I
Speaker 3: don't know if they give you a heads up. Hey,
Speaker 3: somebody is trying to I mean, I assume people try
Speaker 3: and they fail all the time every day trying to
Speaker 3: trademark something that's already trademarked.
Speaker 1: So maybe not.
Speaker 4: We can't even probably mark our own names at this
Speaker 4: point because someone else has beaten us to it.
Speaker 5: Certainly with the race to getting a website.
Speaker 4: People steal famous people's names all the time, so that
Speaker 4: could I don't know how much of an heads up
Speaker 4: you get about any of that.
Speaker 3: But they didn't get one and maybe didn't want one
Speaker 3: until the Life of a Showgirl became the biggest album
Speaker 3: in history. I do believe so all of this happened
Speaker 3: and rose. When we first heard the story, we thought
Speaker 3: it was a stretch, this little thing going on in
Speaker 3: Las Vegas. No disrespect to her, but she's a smaller
Speaker 3: town performer in any comparison. Even though though the names
Speaker 3: weren't even the same, Life of a Showgirl Confessions of
Speaker 3: a Showgirl, I didn't think.
Speaker 1: They are similar. Yeah.
Speaker 5: I wouldn't have thought so either.
Speaker 4: And it is a little shocking to hear that Taylor
Speaker 4: Swift's application for a trademark didn't go through because of
Speaker 4: this smaller operation.
Speaker 3: So okay, but man, her attorneys have now turned this
Speaker 3: story in Robes. There were some things we didn't understand
Speaker 3: when we first heard about the lawsuit, but they are
Speaker 3: pointing out they have gone after this woman in such
Speaker 3: a way that is brutal in a court filing. And
Speaker 3: they are saying, Robes that she is the one who
Speaker 3: was infringing on Taylor Swift's album, and she was the
Speaker 3: one trying to use Taylor Swift's album to prop up
Speaker 3: her own brand.
Speaker 1: So how are you gonna come and sue us?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Oftentimes the best defense is an offense, correct, and
Speaker 4: that's exactly what Taylor Swift's attorneys are doing here in
Speaker 4: their response to this lawsuit.
Speaker 3: But the response was direct, not quite You know, it
Speaker 3: was insulting without being insulting.
Speaker 5: Well, you were laughing out loud as you were reading it.
Speaker 3: They were essentially saying, Robes that you're saying that you
Speaker 3: all mark it to similar audiences and do similar things,
Speaker 3: and in some way the audience is gonna get your
Speaker 3: confessions of a showgirl confused with life of a showgirl,
Speaker 3: and they will say it in just the most eloquent
Speaker 3: legal fashion.
Speaker 4: Yes, here's what Taylor's attorney said. Plaintiff attempts to broadly
Speaker 4: lump her cabaret sho and defendant's musical album together as
Speaker 4: quote entertainment services. That comparison is absurd. Flag performs if
Speaker 4: at all, in small intimate venues such as a fifty
Speaker 4: five plus active community, fifty five plus golf resort RV
Speaker 4: and golf resort, ninety seat cabaret style venue that offers dinner, hotel,
Speaker 4: and private supper club. And then they added, just for
Speaker 4: the fun of it, her website lists no upcoming performances.
Speaker 1: Why private supper club gets me private.
Speaker 4: Supper clubs because you get an idea of just look
Speaker 4: to not use a proper legal terma like a rinky
Speaker 4: dink venue, and that's kind of what they're referring to,
Speaker 4: this very small time rinky dink audience in small supper clubs.
Speaker 4: No one's getting it confused with Taylor Swift and if
Speaker 4: they do good for her, actually.
Speaker 3: Good for her, and she Robes certainly thought that would
Speaker 3: be good for her, according to Swift's attorneys, and according
Speaker 3: to stuff that's been out there that you could go
Speaker 3: easily verify. Apparently Robes this woman has for a long time,
Speaker 3: since we first heard and saw the art and the
Speaker 3: title of this album, has been trying to attach herself to.
Speaker 5: Life of a show Yes, Taylor's attorneys say.
Speaker 4: Since the album announcement, Plaintiff has reframed her brand around
Speaker 4: the album, flooding her social media accounts with posts attempting
Speaker 4: to align herself with Miss Swift and the album. Prior
Speaker 4: to the album announcement, Playtoniff never used the Life of
Speaker 4: a Showgirl in her social media promotion. Following the announcement,
Speaker 4: Plaintiff used the phrase or posted generally about Miss Swift
Speaker 4: or the album over forty times on her branded Instagram
Speaker 4: and TikTok.
Speaker 1: Accounts, Okay, that doesn't sound good, not at all.
Speaker 4: No, And in fact, they go on even further to say,
Speaker 4: far from showing any concern about the album. After its announcement,
Speaker 4: Miss Flagg spent several months centering her brand on the
Speaker 4: life of a showgirl's name, artwork, music, and lyrics to
Speaker 4: promote her little known cabaret show. In fact, a mere
Speaker 4: four days after Miss Swift announced her album title and artwork,
Speaker 4: in August of twenty twenty five, Miss Flag announced a
Speaker 4: new podcast mimicking Miss Swift's album artwork, logo, title, and taglines.
Speaker 4: Then plaintive flood at her Instagram and TikTok pages with
Speaker 4: forty plus advertisements for her brand using Miss Swift's music,
Speaker 4: trademarks and other intellectual property without permission road.
Speaker 3: I mean it's hilarious outuch. Will a judge listen to that?
Speaker 3: Like just because she tried to use it? Like, is
Speaker 3: that enough to say, get out of my court, wasting
Speaker 3: my time?
Speaker 5: I think I don't.
Speaker 4: It's she tried to use it to her benefit and
Speaker 4: now she's trying to somehow claim it's hurt her.
Speaker 5: That's the problem.
Speaker 4: How do you use and try to take basically a
Speaker 4: similar name to your advantage and then claim that that
Speaker 4: similar name has brought you some sort of disadvantage.
Speaker 3: It's amazing that you just took the conversation there.
Speaker 1: Stay with us.
Speaker 3: I'm going to answer that question, and it's an argument,
Speaker 3: Robes that many say the former Vegas show girl has
Speaker 3: an upside on. Stay here, all right, Welcome back to
Speaker 3: this episode of Amy and TJ. I have been wiping
Speaker 3: tears out of my eyes. Robeses giving me a hard time.
Speaker 5: He actually is still wiping tears.
Speaker 4: He every time you say supper club, he just starts
Speaker 4: laughing so hard he can't stop.
Speaker 3: It's so ridiculous because I find I can see the
Speaker 3: pettiness in it, and I see the sarcasm, and I
Speaker 3: appreciate they listed something factual that still made their point.
Speaker 3: Are you kidding me? You think somebody's going to confuse
Speaker 3: you with this woman?
Speaker 5: And if they do, that's only going to help you?
Speaker 3: Oh man, Okay, I don't know why this story is
Speaker 3: so hilarious to me, But Rose, I want to pick
Speaker 3: up on the point you were making, Like, what argument
Speaker 3: can you try to make?
Speaker 1: Isn't this only beneficial to yes?
Speaker 4: Your celebrif you would want to be confused with Taylor Swift,
Speaker 4: if people thought that you were in some way affiliated
Speaker 4: with her, that would only help your brand, one would think.
Speaker 1: One would think.
Speaker 3: But some will make the argument and she will that
Speaker 3: it goes the opposite way that yes, Taylor Swift is
Speaker 3: hurting her brand because this happens that there are times
Speaker 3: where the imitator outdoes the original. So now Taylor Swift
Speaker 3: has overwhelmed the world with this phrase life of a showgirl.
Speaker 3: That diminishes her brand or her ability to get seen
Speaker 3: as anything on her own. Now there might be a stretch,
Speaker 3: it might be better examples out there of it, But
Speaker 3: that's a thing that is talked about in these cases.
Speaker 3: Did the imitator become bigger than the original? And you
Speaker 3: can make an argument, h she certainly the hit.
Speaker 5: She's tried to at least.
Speaker 4: And look, Taylor Swift's team has already, as we've kind
Speaker 4: of alluded to, on going on the defense, is considering
Speaker 4: going on the offense because they are now saying that
Speaker 4: they may file their own lawsuit against this woman, saying
Speaker 4: each of these advertisements constitutes actionable infringement and they will
Speaker 4: be pursuing appropriate remedies for that. So with the very
Speaker 4: least there's going to be a conversation between legal teams.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that could mean a lot of stuff appropriate remedies
Speaker 3: to that. This is an incredible five. But yeah, that's
Speaker 3: her production team that they plan on going after this
Speaker 3: woman for. I forgot to mention it. I haven't listed.
Speaker 3: But in addition to Maren Flag and all of her
Speaker 3: Instagram posts and changing her artwork, she literally used these hashtags,
Speaker 3: literally use those in her posts to get attention.
Speaker 4: So in her Instagram posts, she puts hashtag Swifties, hashtag
Speaker 4: Taylor Swift, hoping that, yes, when you have an algorithm
Speaker 4: you're looking for a search you are a Taylor Swift fan,
Speaker 4: that her post would come up, and she's hoping I
Speaker 4: would argue, and I think perhaps many courts might agree,
Speaker 4: or certainly the judge looking at this case, that is
Speaker 4: completely and totally negating your lawsuit because if you are
Speaker 4: trying to use any potential confusion between those two titles
Speaker 4: Confession of a Showgirl, Life of a Showgirl to your
Speaker 4: advantage by hashtagging Swifties, hashtagging Taylor Swift, so that people
Speaker 4: who love Taylor Swift will also see your brand and
Speaker 4: what you're offering. You can't then say you're being hurt
Speaker 4: by it. You were deliberately trying to be helped because
Speaker 4: of it.
Speaker 1: Hoping to right. The other thing here is Lady Gaga.
Speaker 3: I want to mention she did have this issue with
Speaker 3: a surf shop somewhere that took issue with the album
Speaker 3: art she had for Mayhem. He just won that suit.
Speaker 3: It had a lot to do with them using that
Speaker 3: as merchandizing. Didn't want her to be able to sell
Speaker 3: merchandising with that on it, But she won that case.
Speaker 3: These are high bars. The other thing, they have something
Speaker 3: called the Rogers test. I learned a lot about trademark
Speaker 3: today ropes something called the Rogers test to where they
Speaker 3: give more freedom of expression for art like album covers,
Speaker 3: to where you can't she not taking your whole brand
Speaker 3: and building another one off of it. It's just how
Speaker 3: she wants to decorate her art and the expression in
Speaker 3: one phrase.
Speaker 1: Wow. So that's another thing.
Speaker 4: And is this, honestly, I mean, I'm just curious. Is
Speaker 4: this the cost of being a highly successful artist?
Speaker 5: Period?
Speaker 1: They get sued every day.
Speaker 4: People just see an opportunity to try and get something
Speaker 4: from them, get something because of them. And it's a
Speaker 4: sad state of where we are, just these frivolous lawsuits,
Speaker 4: and there's always seems like attorney's willing to take up
Speaker 4: the cause to see if they can get some sort
Speaker 4: of a payday or maybe even just a settlement from
Speaker 4: these big artists because they think, hey, this is easy pickings.
Speaker 4: We see literally an ATM when they look at some
Speaker 4: of these stars, they see an ATM. That's sad because
Speaker 4: this certainly seems like this could be a part of that.
Speaker 4: But I actually, and I know you have to appreciated
Speaker 4: the fact that Taylor Swift's attorneys are taking this, doubling
Speaker 4: down and throwing it right back and we shall see
Speaker 4: where this lands.
Speaker 3: Yes, she is asking for monetary services. The last thing, Rose,
Speaker 3: I'm meant to pull this up for you and show
Speaker 3: it to you. Taylor Swift has by some count I think,
Speaker 3: one hundred and sixty trademarks on names.
Speaker 1: This is the list.
Speaker 3: She's even trademarked TS and it's specific for certain certain things.
Speaker 3: The Life of a show Girl Swifty Swift Muss is
Speaker 3: actually trademarked Wow, the Tortured Poets Department, Taylor Khn all
Speaker 3: these things.
Speaker 1: It's a long, long list.
Speaker 5: This is this is what you have to do. That's
Speaker 5: what you have to do to protect yourself. Wow, my goodness.
Speaker 4: All right, well, I'm glad at least you got a
Speaker 4: solid laugh, a belly laugh for two out of this one.
Speaker 3: You don't find suffer clubs every day.
Speaker 4: And with that everyone, we hope you enjoy the rest
Speaker 4: of your day today.
Speaker 5: I'm Aye Robot alongside TJ.
Speaker 4: Holmes.
Speaker 5: We'll talk soon.