Taylor Swift’s lawyers call ‘Life Of A Showgirl’ suit “meritless” at trial

Taylor Swift’s lawyers have called Maren Wade’s trademark infringement lawsuit against the singer’s ‘The Life Of A Showgirl’ album “nonsensical”.

• READ MORE: Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour comes to an end: a look at its massive global impact

The popstar was sued last March by Wade, a former Las Vegas showgirl, for allegedly disregarding Wade’s claim to a similar name. Wade writes a Las Vegas Weekly column called Confessions Of A Showgirl about her experiences as a performer in the entertainment industry; it has since become a podcast and a live show.

The original suit accused Swift of using her album title on merchandise and consumer goods, “all directed at the same audience Plaintiff had spent years cultivating”. It adds that Swift’s initial application to register ‘The Life Of A Showgirl’ was denied by the US Patent and Trademark Office declined over its confusion to Wade’s column.

Wade seeks unspecified damages and a court order barring the singer from continuing to use the name of her chart-topping album.

WATCH

At first, Swift’s legal team said that Wade’s request infringes on the First Amendment, adding that it was “undisputed” that the album is “a classic expressive work” and thus entitled to legal protections.

Now, Swift is looking to to toss the case entirely, with her team calling the case “nonsensical”. “Plaintiff’s overarching assertion that consumers are – or could be – confused into believing that Ms. Swift, a 14-time Grammy Award winner and global musical icon, is the source of or is associated with plaintiff’s podcast, book, or live cabaret performances at golf resorts and RV parks is nonsensical,” Swift’s lawyers wrote (as per Rolling Stone).

Taylor Swift’s ‘Life of a Showgirl’ Trademark Fight Escalates as Lawyers Call Lawsuit ‘Nonsensical’https://t.co/90DKB3GMZk

— Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) September 23, 2026

They added that the confusion between Swift’s album and Maren’s brand were “unlikely”, suggesting that the court “should” dismiss the case.

Swift’s lawyers continued to say Wade had failed to “identify a single case where trademark infringement served as the basis of an unfair UCL claim,” instead claiming that her lawsuit was more relevant to false advertising. As Swift is a Tennessee resident, they also that the Los Angeles federal court had no personal jurisdiction over the popstar.

“Plaintiff’s claims were – and are still – baseless,” they concluded. “Having already amended once and still failing to plausibly allege any claims, plaintiff is not entitled to anything more. This case should be dismissed with prejudice.”

Wade’s lawyer has previously argued that she has spent 12 years building her brand, which she has now watched “absorbed in real time into a multi-billion dollar commercial machine”.

“She has no portfolio of alternative brands, no corporate backing, and no global marketing operation to compete for consumer attention,” Wade’s lawyer added. “Defendants have all of these. That asymmetry is directly relevant to the equities, and it tips in the plaintiff’s favour.”

However, Swift’s lawyers hit back, claiming that Wade “was very much affiliating herself with Ms. Swift for eight months” as she realised the potential to make “commercial gain” from the similarities in the album title and her brand.

Swift’s ‘The Life Of A Showgirl’ dropped in October 2025, becoming the best-selling album of the year. Yesterday (23 September), Swift announced ‘The Life Of A Showgirl: The Encore’, which will arrive tomorrow (September 25).

The new edition of the record contains four new tracks, including the previously-teased ‘Patient Zero’ – pre-order/pre-save here.

Speaking about the record, Swift wrote: “About a year ago, you guys did a truly unfathomable thing. Something that completely blew my mind… You gave ‘The Life Of A Showgirl’ the biggest first week for an album in history.

“I took a trip to Sweden to celebrate with Max and Shellback, my two collaborators on this album,” she added. “Really we just wanted to reflect and take in how grateful we were for the moment we were in, but there was a studio there and we did what we do when we feel anything at all: We wrote more songs.”

Swift concluded: “I hope you love them, because they were born out of pure gratitude for your exuberance for and celebration of the album we made.”