Big Names, Bigger Trademark Battles, and Dragons
Even global pop stars have to play by the rules of trademark law. Just ask Taylor Swift and Katy Perry, whose recent legal headlines show that building a brand around a name or phrase can be more complicated than it sounds.
Taylor Swift’s latest trademark filing offers a fresh example. Swift’s company recently applied to register the title of her upcoming album, The Life of a Showgirl, as a trademark in connection with merchandise, promotional materials, and potentially tour branding tied to the album’s release.
For now, however, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has pressed pause on the application. The reason is not a rejection, but a procedural step triggered by earlier trademarks that may be too similar.
Confessions of a Showgirl was registered in 2015 by Las Vegas performer Maren Wade for entertainment services connected to her cabaret production.
Another potential conflict comes from a pending trademark application for the word Showgirl tied to a fragrance brand. Showgirl has already received a Notice of Allowance. Because Swift’s proposed title contains overlapping language, the USPTO flagged the application for a potential “likelihood of confusion,” the legal standard used to determine whether consumers might mistakenly believe two brands are related.
Swift and her team at TAS Rights Management LLC have had more success in their formal opposition to Cathay Home Inc.’s attempts to register “Swift Home” for a range of sheets, pillows and other bedding products.
They have objected that the sweeping “S” and similar script used by the brand too closely resembled the singer’s trademarked cursive signature, and that consumers might be misled into thinking Taylor Swift had endorsed or was somehow connected to the products. Following the February 11th Opposition filed with the USPTO, Cathay withdrew their request.
Katy Perry, meanwhile, has spent years involved in a far more prolonged trademark dispute that centers around her own name.
The singer is a two-time loser in a long running legal battle in Australia with a small fashion designer named Katie Taylor, who operates a clothing label called “Katie Perry.” Taylor began selling clothing under that name in 2007, and later changed her last name to Perry and obtained a trademark registration. She claimed to have not heard of the singer until years later.
In 2009, Taylor was asked to stop using her brand and signaled plans to oppose a trademark application but later dropped legal action. The two parties continued to clash when the singer sold tour merchandise during an Australian tour, leading the fashion designer to accuse the singer of infringement,
As the dispute has moved through the Australian courts, rulings have gone back and forth on whether or not the average consumer would confuse tour merchandise for the small designer’s line of wares. In some matters, they have held Katy Perry’s reputation in Australia was so well established that ordinary consumers would not assume the smaller fashion label was connected to the pop star, thus squashing the singer's challenge to the Katie-with-an-ie’s trademark protection.
These high-profile disputes involving names as trademarks also highlight a common misconception about trademarks. Registering a trademark does not mean someone “owns” a name in every context and the effects of registration are not limited to the super rich and famous.
In one unusual case in the United Kingdom, a mother applying for a passport for her six-year-old daughter was initially told the application could not be processed because the child’s name, Khaleesi, was trademarked. The girl had been named after the popular Game of Thrones mother of dragons.
Officials mistakenly believed that because the name was associated with a trademark, permission from Warner Bros. was required before issuing the passport. The refusal left the family stunned and worried their long-planned holiday might be canceled.
After legal clarification that trademarks apply only to goods and services and do not restrict the use of personal names, the Passport Office acknowledged the error and apologized. With the trademark confusion resolved, the passport office proceeded normally, and no dragons had to be summoned. 🐉
While a name can be a powerful part of a brand, trademark rights are not automatic and they are rarely absolute. Whether the name belongs to a pop superstar, a fashion designer, or a new business owner, the key question is always the same: could consumers believe two brands are connected? The recent headlines surrounding Swift and Perry are a reminder that choosing a name is only the opening act. That name must stand on its own in the marketplace without stepping into someone else’s spotlight.
The experienced trademark, copyright, and litigation attorneys at Renner Otto are happy to address any questions or concerns you may have about protecting your valuable copyright assets. Contact us to schedule a consultation.
The attorneys at Renner Otto strive to be authorities in all matters concerning the ever-evolving landscape of Intellectual Property; however, the information provided on our website is not intended to be legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship.