Taylor Swift’s longtime lawyer argued in court on Wednesday (May 27) that the First Amendment protects The Life of a Showgirl from trademark claims.
Douglas Baldridge appeared in Los Angeles federal court to oppose Las Vegas performer Maren Wade’s injunction bid. Wade, who puts on a cabaret show called “Confessions of a Showgirl,” alleges Swift’s latest No. 1 album infringes her intellectual property and wants to block The Life of a Showgirl merch sales until the litigation is fully resolved.
Judge Serena R. Murillo opened up the hearing by suggesting that her “real concern” in this case is whether The Life of a Showgirl should be shielded from trademark litigation because the album is a piece of art — that is, a so-called expressive work under First Amendment case law. Wade’s attorney, Jaymie Parkkinen, argued on Wednesday that the answer is no because Swift uses the album title not just for music, but also for a massive “branding campaign.”
Baldridge, who has represented Swift for years as both outside counsel at the firm Venable and in-house during her record-breaking Eras Tour, countered that The Life of a Showgirl is a “classic expressive work.” He cited Lady Gaga’s recent court victory in a similar trademark lawsuit over her Mayhem album on artistic expression grounds.
“That’s why the First Amendment applies here, and that’s why they can’t get a preliminary injunction, much less win the case,” Baldridge said.
Wade, born Maren Flagg, has owned the trademark “Confessions of a Showgirl” since 2015 for her touring cabaret show about the escapades of a modern-day Las Vegas performer. Swift’s company TAS Rights Management sought to trademark the phrase “The Life of a Showgirl” upon the album’s announcement in August, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) preliminarily denied the application due to a likelihood of confusion with Wade’s existing mark. The trademark request remains pending.
The Life of a Showgirl debuted atop the Billboard 200 in October with a record 4 million units in its first week, and the album went on to reign atop the chart for 12 weeks. Then came the lawsuit: Wade sued Swift in March, claiming the new era “threatened to swallow” her much smaller business.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Parkkinen argued that Wade’s trademark is “being absorbed in real-time.” He said an injunction would make a huge difference for Wade, while any resulting lost profits for Swift or her label partners at Universal Music Group would be nothing more than a “rounding error.”
Meanwhile, Swift’s attorneys have asserted in response to the lawsuit that there are significant differences between “Confessions of a Showgirl” and The Life of a Showgirl. Pointedly, they noted in a May court filing that while Swift plays sold-out stadiums, Wade “performs, if at all, in small intimate venues, such as a 55+ active community.”
Swift’s camp has also criticized Wade for intentionally associating herself with Swift’s brand on Instagram and TikTok, citing more than 40 posts that featured hashtags like #thelifeofashowgirl, #TS12, #taylorswift and #swifties. On Wednesday, Baldridge pointed to one post in which Wade said she was in her “showgirl era.”
“I don’t know if your honor follows Ms. Swift, but ‘era’ is a pretty big word for us,” said Baldridge.
Judge Murillo did not announce any ruling on the injunction motion during the hearing, saying a written decision would come down “shortly.” Swift’s team has also requested separately to dismiss the lawsuit outright, and that motion remains pending.
