BONDI, BEZOES AND SWIFT! TAYLOR SWIFT - Is LIFE OF A SHOWGIRL Trademark Enforceable?

Added: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]Well, Judge Lyman has spoken and it's left everyone confused and it's not looking so good for Miss Taylor Swift.

[00:00:07]Grab your emotional support lip gloss.

[00:00:09]Let's get into it.

[00:00:19]Hello and welcome back to In Frame with Mandy. I'm Mandy Magn. Happy Friday. I hope you're having the most amazing day.

[00:00:27]We are going to get into Judge Lyman's new letter that he filed, which has everyone confused. Uh, but we're going to go over that. We're also going to go over a little Pam Bondi, a little Jeff Bezos, and then we're going to get into Taylor Swift's lawsuit and everything that's happening in there. Okay, from yesterday's episode, Miss Jen's [ __ ] 6195 commented, "Justin had a pic uploaded yesterday and wowzers, his arms were out and yummy, lol. I think that is why Blake posted that thirst trap."

[00:01:03]Thank you so much, Jen, for commenting that. I didn't catch Justin Baldony's um picture that he posted or his arms or anything like that, but I'm sure they were looking good. You know, he is a pretty fit guy. But honestly, I think you are right on the money. I think that's probably why little Blake Lively was a little jelly. Okay, she was probably a little jealous over there.

[00:01:26]And yeah, I mean, that totally just wraps it all up and makes complete sense to me. Okay, so Judge Lyman filed this order yesterday in the court letting everyone know that they can reply and give an answer of no more than I believe two pages. We're going to go over it because it's only one and a half pages long. And I was even waiting for the lawyers to weigh in on this. Like what does this all mean? And it doesn't seem like anyone knows. I do believe it's going to be a hard sell for Lively to be able to keep it under, you know, a certain amount of page number because, as we know, Blake Lively's attorneys had already requested the judge that they filed no more than a fivepage response kind of letting him know what they want when it comes to the attorney fees and the 47.1.

[00:02:15]But Judge Lyman at that point, which was just a couple of weeks ago, was like, "Nah, I'm good. I don't need that." And then he files this. So, it does say defendant Blake Lively moves for fees, costs, and damages under California Civil Code section 47.1 that was filed on December 31st, 2024. The court will receive argument and letter briefs on the following questions. Assuming without deciding that an application by a prevailing defendant for relief under California code section 47.1 may be made pursuant to federal rules of civil procedure 54. Which party bears the burden of proof of showing that the communication is privileged under section 47.1, including whether that burden differs depending on whether the application is for attorney fees alone or also for trouble and punitive damages and whether the burden differs where section 47.1 relief is sought through rule 54 of the federal rules of civil procedure. The parties may also address how that burden may be discharged. Okay. So, this is the first time that we're seeing rule 54 and this is for like attorney fees if your case gets dismissed or depending on the ruling that happens. And as we know, they settled unless he's talking about the dismissal from the wfair parties. I mean, it's not very clear here exactly what he's looking for. But what we do know is that these have to be submitted uh by May 31st. Okay? So, they have to be submitted by Monday, May 31st by 5:00 p.m. Each side may submit a single spaced letter of no more than two pages with 12 point font and no footnotes limited to listing the cases that the party would like the court to review with quotes or like an explanation, okay, of what exactly they're looking for here. Maybe the judge is just like as confused as us is like what does Lively like what exactly is she looking for with this 47.1? Is it just from the time that Wayfair filed to the time that they were dismissed? Does that count as punitive damages? What about the treble damages? Like what exactly are you guys looking for? And what case study can you find that this has to be granted or this has to be denied? Right? And the court is going to hear arguments on June 1st.

[00:04:47]That's going to happen at 2 o'clock and also it will just be for one hour. Each side will get 30 minutes. Okay. And then Judge Lyman will rule and I bet he is so happy to wipe his hands from this crazy crazy case. But then, you know, we still got Stephanie [ __ ] Jones over there versus Abel and Wayfair. So, we'll see. This is kind of like confusing, but I guess we'll see what the lawyers come up with and what their letters look like. that will be submitted by Monday.

[00:05:16]Okay, by Monday, by 5:00 PM, we should be getting these letters. Ever since the Wayfair trial started or the it ends with never with Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni and all of the Wayfair defendants, I really like have realized that there's always more to come. Like there's always something else to the story. And it's really given me pause with big stories that come out to maybe may hold the phone a little bit and wait for more information. I'm definitely doing that right now when it comes to the stuff happening with Mob Bland and Tom Hardy and that whole situation with Miss Marin. I waiting to see like more information and not like jumping straight to it. And I feel like I have a pretty good case study happening because it looks like there is like kind of a smear campaign happening on both sides and still kind of waiting for the truth to come out there. But I've been kind of like when a big story comes out or when something comes out, I'm always like, why is this happening? What's going on?

[00:06:21]Like there's more to it, right? Like there's more to come. And that's why when the stories came out the other day about Pan Bondi being diagnosed with thyroid cancer, I mean, the worst, right? I mean, anytime that C-word comes up and I just thought, what an interesting time to drop that, right?

[00:06:41]like why would they just drop that just a couple days ago, two days ago, it was everywhere that the former former attorney general was um diagnosed and she is battling thyroid cancer after being fired as the attorney general. And I thought, well, that happened quite a while ago. I like why now? Like why are they just like dropping that everywhere now? Like what is the situation? Well, come to find out yesterday that Pam Bondi was today to sit in front of Congress to answer about her cover up or not cover up of the Epstein files. Well, it turns out like the only way that she was going to testify was to not do it under oath with no cameras and no recordings. Very interesting that she wouldn't want to answer questions under oath, but you know, as long as the Dow's over 50,000, who cares, right? Remember that little circus show that she put on last time? Well, they did. They did question her. And it turns out that she has refused to answer any questions with regards to her communications or what she was told by the White House, also by the president. Okay, this is Robert Garcia and he is talking about what happened.

[00:08:01]>> We continue to say that this vid this should be recorded by video and released to the American public and we're also asking that Chairman Comr immediate immediately release the transcripts that right now are being done throughout today. I want to also say just uh a few a few other things. It is clear in just this this part of the of the interview that she continues to push all of the investigation and the blame on acting AG Todd Blanch.

[00:08:33]She said, and I quote, "Acting AG Blanch was managing the entire investigation."

[00:08:38]End quote. And what you're going to hear in that interview and what she's saying here in her words and remarks is that it was Todd Blanch, the current acting AG that was leading the Epstein investigation. And quite frankly, all of the mistakes that we saw, the redactions, not protecting survivors, she continues to push that back onto the acting AG, Todd Blanch, who by the way was Donald Trump's former personal lawyer.

[00:09:07]>> Right.

[00:09:09]And let's just what was Todd Blanch doing in the Epstein investigation when Pam Bondi was the acting attorney general? He had no business. He wasn't even part of, you know, the he was just Donald Trump's attorney. Like he wasn't part of the government then. He wasn't an attorney general. He had no role in the government. So why was he overseeing the redactions in the Epstein files as well as the release of the Epstein files? This is crazy. And this is Representative Anzari who says that today is a ridiculous charade. And it's made astonishing clear that the DOJ has been weaponized by Donald Trump to ensure a massive cover up in the biggest uh child human trafficking ring. And it's just what a sad day for victims and survivors honestly again >> in American history is carried out. And this is being enabled by Republicans in Congress led by Republican Chairman James Comr and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. This entire Epstein investigation led by Chairman Comr has been absurd. We are we have two legal subpoenas against attorney former attorney general Pam Bondi. She is supposed to be here under oath today on video answering questions for the American people about her role and the direct hand that she had in this cover up. Instead, she is deflecting. She is refusing to answer questions and she continues to refuse to answer specific questions about the president of the United States. It is so clear that whether it be Pam Bondi, whether it be Chairman Comr, whether it be Mike Johnson, the entire party is terrified of Donald Trump and his retaliation as it pertains to the cover up of the Epstein files. It's unacceptable. It is notable that she continues to blame Todd Blanch and Cash Patel. of course want to speak to them. But I think what I want to make clear to the American public and to everybody and to the survivors especially is that we are not going to give up on this. I think Republicans believe that they just kind of carry out these nonsense transcribed interviews and don't show up here today that we will forget about this. We are just getting started as it pertains to accountability and justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, Galain Maxwell, and any other rich and powerful person in this country who who perpetrated these crimes. I think it's so crazy and it's so scary that all of these people can read the Epstein files and see what's in them. I've gone over some of it with you when it pertains to Trump, period. But there are so many emails where they have the sender redacted and it says some of the most disturbing things about babies, about children, about I mean, these are CHILDREN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. LIKE, oh my gosh. And I don't care who it is. I don't care what billionaire it is. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care if you are hurting children. If you are harming children, you gots to go. Okay, we have to start building a world where the children do come first. So, this is so crazy, but it doesn't surprise me that now they're blaming Todd Blanch.

[00:12:34]This guy uh uh uh evil to the core, this was his response when asked even about the Epstein files. And I think this was on like his first or second day that he took over for Pam Bondi.

[00:12:47]>> Uh thank you. Um um you said this is the end of the Epstein uh of your review of the Epstein files. So just to clarify are is the public going to learn the identities of the men who abused the girls >> right >> with the information that you're releasing? And if not >> why not and then I have a quick followup.

[00:13:07]>> I mean you just baked in an assumption into your question that I have never said and I don't know to be true. Is the public going to learn about men that abuse these girls? Like what does that mean?

[00:13:18]>> I mean, I don't understand what that means.

[00:13:20]>> Well, I mean, the the men who abused the young women through Epstein's um through >> we we said in July um and it remains as true today as it was in July. Um if we had information, we meaning the Department of Justice about men who abused women, we would um we would we would prosecute them. Right? We talked about the work that we're doing. That's why I said that there's that I said this earlier. There's this built-in assumption that somehow there's this hidden trunch of information of men that we know about >> that we're covering up or that we're not we're choosing not to prosecute. That is not the case. I don't know whether there are men out there that abuse these women.

[00:14:02]>> But it's your job to figure it out because there are emails from people sent to Jeffrey Epstein literally like, "Hey, I enjoyed that little girl last night. Hey, thanks for sending you know there are some of the most disgusting evil things that are being sent and you know what those people sending the emails redacted right okay and what's very interesting is the day that she's to testify and she did closed door hearing of course it was 3.5 hours where she refused to go under oath and refused to answer any questions okay so what a waste of time and resources And then on that same day that she was supposed to go and testify, she gets a new job. Yes, Pam Bondi has been promoted or moved to or whatever it is, but she's been appointed to be now on the Council of Advisors of Science and Technology, which is shortened for Pcast. Yes. And she's going to focus on AI policy and regulations. Huh. So now she's a scientist. Now she's an AI scientist. Now she's a professional.

[00:15:18]Like what? This is a madeup job. This is so crazy. But of course this is to what?

[00:15:24]Buy her silence. All of these people are going to go down as the worst worst corrupt corrupt people covering up child sex trafficking. Absolutely disgusting.

[00:15:40]I cannot even stand the sight of her.

[00:15:43]But you know, well, the D is over 50,000. The Dow's over 50,000. Shut up.

[00:15:49]I have no kindness, no love, no empathy, nothing in my heart when it comes to people who harm children, who um want to over sexualize children, sexualize children in any way, who harm children, who have any kind of sicko thoughts like that. Ew, ew, ew. There's nothing in me, not even one ounce, not even a shred of empathy or love or kindness to any of these people, okay? And every single person involved in this cover up dead to me. Like I I have nothing for you. Like I think you are literally the scum of the earth and I think it's absolutely disgusting. Okay, speaking of disgusting, we have billionaires. Yeah, they don't know what to do with their money. No, Jeff Bezos is so rich. What do you do with your money? Let's play astronaut again. Yes, they like to just waste a bunch of money and destroy the planet in my opinion. At least when it comes to this man. Okay, this man. So, last night there was an explosion, a crazy explosion. Okay, it happened at launch complex 36. It happened at around 900 p.m. Eastern time as Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos's little spaceship, was beginning a static fire test. And this is his new rocket. So, who knows how much this cost, but this was his new Glenn rocket. And well, you know, thank God nobody was in it and it was a test run because here we go.

[00:17:31]Dang.

[00:17:36]That is crazy. That is crazy.

[00:17:41]Look.

[00:17:46]Kaboom, baby.

[00:17:49]And thankfully, nobody was harmed and nobody was in this space rocket. I mean, oh my god. Like, and on impact, like literally as soon as it started, done.

[00:18:00]And I'm sure his little bro Elon is just over somewhere laughing away at his, you know, little little spaceship um enemy here. Who can get to space first, right?

[00:18:11]Um this is crazy. Can we leave spaceships, I don't know, up to NASA, you know? Can we just leave it in the hands of NASA? I think there are a million other things that you can do with your hundreds of billions of dollars that could actually help the earth, help the planet, help the people, and not this. Now, let's get into the Taylor Swift lawsuit. Because as much as they try to paint PR and do crisis PR and overload everyone with wedding, wedding, wedding, so you don't pay attention to anything else happening.

[00:18:43]This lawsuit is underway. Okay. And the response coming from the artist, the plaintiff in the case is quite good, I think. I mean, the fact that like I just can't get over the fact that Taylor Swift and her people applied for the trademark and was denied and still went ahead and did it anyway. And in the trademark denial, it says it's because it's so similar to this. So, she knew that there was another woman, a another artist using this trademark and they still went ahead and did it anyway. And to me, I just think that's gh ill e ill e ill e ill e ill. But let's go over the latest filing from May and Flag and then Taylor Swift has replied and is looking to get the entire case dismissed on a technicality. They have been going a little bit back and forth. We read the original complaint that was first filed, but now this is like going in here.

[00:19:39]Okay, so what Marin has asked is that they do like an injunction and pause all sales for any merch or anything on the life of a showgirl by Taylor Swift.

[00:19:51]Taylor's obviously arguing that and now this is the reply. Okay, defendants, which is the Taylor Swift team, all of them together, argue against themselves.

[00:20:01]They reach for Rogers, but their conduct rules it out. They toot their scale, but their scale is the problem. They say plaintiff's claim is meritless and she should have brought it sooner. And they have been here before on the other side.

[00:20:18]when UMG, which is the company, one of the companies with Taylor Swift, when UMG was the plaintiff in another trademark case, it argued that sidebyside comparison is the wrong test, that loss of brand control is irreparable harm, and that a defendant who proceeds full speed ahead after notice of infringement acts in bad faith. So Taylor it, I gotta tell you, the Swift team is they are the the strictest when it comes to using her music, her likeness or trademarks, okay?

[00:20:55]Like they are very strict, like the strictest artist when it comes to that.

[00:21:00]So they've already like fought many times against other people and that's their argument. And now they're saying the opposite when it comes to them, which is like so crazy. And that's what they're calling out. They now claim the opposite. Defendants are quick to enforce trademark laws against others.

[00:21:19]They just will not apply it to themselves. Okay. So, they're going with this Rogers defense. And they're saying that the Rogers defense does not work.

[00:21:28]And that's from a Jack Daniels props versus VIP products. And it's not whether a mark has expressive content.

[00:21:37]Most marks do. It is whether a mark functions as a designation of source.

[00:21:43]Defendant's conduct speaks for itself.

[00:21:47]They filed a trademark application asserting source identifying use. They repeatedly registered album titles as trademarks and sue to enforce them. They do. Okay. And their own opposition describes their global marketing and branding campaign. a branding campaign that is textbook source identifying activity. Defendants authorities do not save them. Okay. And then they quote a whole bunch of case laws that they used, including 20th Century Fox Television versus Empire Distribution. Did the defendant file a trademark application, maintain a litigation history of enforcing album titles as marks, or describe its own program as a branding campaign? Neither defendant faced a USPTO refusal of its trademark application as confusingly similar to a senior incontestable mark. The central fact here, so they're trying to use these case laws where I guess Fox and a bunch of like Fox um television and they kind of got away with it. But what they're saying is well in those case laws they never even filed the trademark. It's it's not even the same thing. You did you filed and were denied and went ahead anyway. Okay. Defendant citation to this other toy trackers versus coler is a straw man. Plaintiff does not argue that an application confers rights. She argues it is an admission of source identifying use. It is also in opposite. It predates the Jack Daniels and Punch Bowl did not analyze whether an application is evidence of trademark use and address the unrelated questions of premature cancellation. Rogers does not apply.

[00:23:36]Defendants have not shown unclean hands.

[00:23:38]Here we go with the unclean hands again.

[00:23:41]Okay. Plaintiff is an active performer and comedian whose creative identity has centered on the same premise since 2014.

[00:23:49]the gap between the glamorous fantasy of showgirl life and its unglamorous reality. She has presented that premise in Las Vegas weekly columns, on stage, and on camera. As defendants own exhibit show, a typical installment presents plaintiff in showgirl attire doing something unglamorous. Struggling to fit into a car in a large headdress, taking out the trash, picking up the dog. Our when defendants released an album presenting showg girls as glamorous plaintiff's long-standing premise acquired a prominent new foil. She responded to the glamorous archetype the way she always has by making comedy about it. So, Taylor Swift is trying to say that because the plaintiff originally when I guess the music came out or something, she used it like in some of her social media posts and she was like making videos about the music and they're saying, "Well, you know, she's just a fan. Like, she used it, therefore it's fine." And they're saying, "Nah, she was like making jokes about the fact that you went ahead and you know, it's kind of like the same same thing." So, she was just making jokes about how similar they were. She posted videos online, but offered no goods or services through them, made no sales, claimed no affiliation, and did not pass off her brand as defendants or theirs as hers. She referenced Swift and her album because humorous commentary requires reference to what it comments on. Congress has protected exactly this type of engagement. Plaintiff used hashtags referencing Swift alongside Red Bull, Backstreet Boys, corporate humor.

[00:25:32]She used her own audio and drew from Swift, Megan Trainer, and Billy Joel.

[00:25:38]Those are interesting people.

[00:25:41]This is how she This is how social media works and defendants know it. Their post do the same.

[00:25:51]Plaintiff also participated online as a fan, exactly how defendants intended.

[00:25:57]The video defendants now characterize as infringement used an album cover filter and audio defendants themselves created and distributed used identically by more than 625,000 other fans. So, they're saying because Taylor Swift, I guess, made this filter for social media and if you can like use it or whatever, like she allowed you to use like a snippet of her music and Taylor Swift came back and said, "Well, that's infringement cuz she used my thing." And they're like, "Everyone used it. You created it for use and 625,000 other people used it, too." Defendants cannot build a filter for fans, court its use, then call one fan's post misconduct when they get sued.

[00:26:44]Defendants claim that plaintiff never used the term life of a showgirl before their album, but that is false.

[00:26:50]Plaintiff has used it for years as defendants own exhibits show. They likewise call plaintiff's podcast art a dramatic rebrand. It is not. The green photography is from 2023 and appeared on materials promoting plaintiff's show in 2024, a year before the album. Even defendants own historical branding exhibit shows the same color schemes, green, yellow, and pink. Defendants Taylor's team saw the plaintiff's preexisting visual identity and assumed it was derivative of theirs. That is reverse confusing. The unclean hands defense fails on every element. Unclean hands must be scrutinized with a critical eye. Defendants must show four things by clear and convincing evidence.

[00:27:44]One, wrongful conduct undertaken with bad intent. Two, bearing an immediate and necessary relation to the acrual of plaintiff's cause of action. Three, that has not ceased. and four that survives balancing against defendants's own misconduct and the public interest. No misconduct, unclean hands requires wrongfulness, willful willfulness, bad faith or gross negligence proved by clear and convincing evidence.

[00:28:16]Plaintiff's photography and color scheme predate the album by two years. That leaves the videos through which plaintiff offered no goods, made no sales, and claimed no affiliation. The intent element fails as well. The doctrine is unclean hands, not impure thoughts. I think that's kind of interesting. It's unclean hands, not impure thoughts. So just because you think something doesn't mean you did it.

[00:28:44]Bad intents require specific intent to deceive consumers about source. Even if plaintiffs sought to engage with public interest surrounding the album, capitalizing on a market demand does not indicate an intent to confuse and there's no nexus. So even assuming misconduct, it must bear an immediate and necessary relation to the acrual of plaintiff's cause of action. Had plaintiff never posted the podcast or a single video, the evidence supporting this motion would be identical.

[00:29:18]Plaintiff's claims derive from the similarity of the marks which is what the USPTO evaluated to reach its refusal not plaintiff social media plaintiff's mark is unchanged. So just because she posted I guess with some Taylor Swift songs or with that little filter that they made or whatever Taylor Swift is saying well she did that in order to confuse the market not the other way around. And they're like, "No, that's not it." Because the US PTO evaluated it by the trademark, not because she posted something on her social media with the Taylor Swift song. You know what I'm saying? Conduct seized. The defense also fails because the conduct seized. A plaintiff's equity is judged by the facts existing as they were when suit was began, not at an earlier time. When conduct ends before litigation, unclean hands is preluded. Plaintiff's post stopped in October of 2025, five months before this lawsuit. The balance favors the plaintiffs. Whatever survives must be balanced against defendants's own conduct and the public interest. On one side, podcast art using pre-existing photography and a few weeks of comedy videos voluntarily ceased with no documented harm. On the other, knowingly expanded exploitation of a designation the US PTO found confusingly similar and refused to register. So, which is like which is worse? You know what I mean?

[00:30:59]like they were denied the trademark and used it anyway and like expanded on it or she made a couple of videos on social media and then stopped before the lawsuit 5 months before the lawsuit. If a campaign to manufacture confusion could not carry the defense there, ordinary social media posts cannot carry it here. The sleek craft factors favor plaintiff strength. Defendants do not contest their commercial strength. They document it and they concede plaintiff's mark is suggestive which is a reverse confusion case against a commercially strong defendant is dispositive.

[00:31:40]Trademark use not bearer registrations.

[00:31:43]And they're saying that the argument here is for trademark use not the bearer registration. They go on to say later that the defendants offer registrations across unrelated categories, SEO services, women's health, and expressive work titles that under the Rogers theory are not trademarks at all. Neither shows actual trademark use in the relevant field because they were trying to say that there are some other cases and like they were able to use it just with one or two words, but they're like, "What about the whole thing when you put it together? I mean, you know, you got to look at the entire thing, the actual trademark in the relevant field, not just all of these other ones that don't aren't in the entertainment field as well. Similarity, defendants build their arguments on a sideby-side comparison.

[00:32:31]It is exonatic in trademark law that sidebyside comparison is not the test, and defendants know it. UMG has told another court that sideby-side comparison is an incorrect test. Okar, true, because marks must be compared in the light of what occurs in the marketplace, not in the courtroom. And I think that's probably one of my favorite things said in this whole filing, that trademarks must be compared in the light of what occurs in the marketplace, not in the courtroom. These are not bottles of ketchup on a shelf. The marks live in Google suggestions, search results, and plain text. As UMG explained, differences are not present when the parties marks appear in text on their website, social media, or press coverage. Defendants argument that Swift's accompanying likeness dispels confusion is misplaced. First, the accompanying mark logic does not hold in text channels, Google autocomplete, social media text, which do not carry Swift's likeness. Second, the 9th Circuit has rejected the theory that housemarks cure confusion in reverse confusion cases. Defendants contend lead words dominate, but the confusion evidence shows the opposite.

[00:33:56]In every instance, commu consumers retained of a showgirl and swapped only the lead words. Defendants do the same.

[00:34:05]Defendants claim a six week and seven syllable difference is meaningful, but the case they cite refutes them.

[00:34:13]Defendants only compare life to confessions, but must compare the marks in their entirety as whole. Both share an inner view of showgirl life. Exactly how Swift describes the album.

[00:34:27]Proximity. The factors ask whether ordinary consumers would would perceive a relationship between the goods.

[00:34:35]Consumers expect brands to extend across categories. Consumer care. The factor evaluates the reasonably prudent consumer, not a party's fans.

[00:34:48]Even so, defendants's own evidence cuts against them. It describes an eager fan base that analyzes clues, hints, and secret messages in everything. Exactly.

[00:35:01]The Easter eggs, the system that Taylor herself set up. So, just because Taylor's team might not think there's a resemblance, the Swifties go hardcore and trying to find stuff. So, it was just a matter of time before they found this girl and probably bullied her to death for even using confessions of a showgirl, not knowing that she has been using it for 10 years now. And I really like what they say that even so, defendants own evidence cuts against them. It describes an eager fan base that analyzes clues, hints, and secret messages in everything. Consumers trained to hunt for connections everywhere are more likely to connect plaintiffs similarly named showgirl brand to defendants. Not less channels and expansion. Defendants only response regarding channels is that plaintiff has not recently posted on her website. That is not the test. Plaintiff's brand is also expanding. A new edition of her book and more podcast episodes are planned. Live shows are paused due to personal safety concerns.

[00:36:14]Oh my gosh. Actual confusion. When UMG was the plaintiff, it told the court that actual confusion need not be shown.

[00:36:25]And when such proof exists, very little proof of actual confusion is necessary.

[00:36:31]It also asserted that a demand for survey evidence at the preliminary injection stage fails. Defendants take the opposite position here. The law has not changed. Only defendants side of the caption has. And I love that they're throwing, you know, it back into their face because yeah, they have sued before. Okay. Okay. Intent. Defendants argue plaintiff has not shown their intent to associate with her brand. That is the wrong test. Reverse confusion intent is established where the defendant culparably disregarded the risk of reverse confusion. Their argument that their use is objectively fair cannot survive the USPTO refusal.

[00:37:21]Defendants irreparable harm argument fails too. Delay. Delay rebutts the harm presumption only where it is unexplained. The timeline is explained.

[00:37:32]Plaintiff consulted council when defendants announced the album in August of 2025, but believed at the time that an album title alone was beyond trademark laws reach. As defendants emphasize, the USPTO's November 5th refusal was nonfinal and the issues potentially curable. A reasonable person could expect defendants to attempt to cure, but they did not. On March 3rd, 2026, the defendant suspended their application and continued using the refused designation. And this is important because Taylor Swift's going to argue on this point, but basically they were refused, right? And they have a chance to go ahead and fix the deficiencies and then refile before using it. And they never did that. They just continued with it. No, even even with it being refused. So, if they would have at least made an attempt to cure what was wrong and what the US PTO told them and then refiled, at least it would have shown like they're trying, but they just h okay, it was refused, whatever, and then just went ahead and kept using it anyway. And Taylor's team is trying to say, well, she should have filed earlier. She should have filed earlier.

[00:38:53]And what they're saying is they had to wait for the US PTO. They had to see what you guys were going to do. Like, they didn't even know any of this stuff.

[00:39:00]And it wasn't until they filed in late November that they realized. And they say a claim ripened not on first awareness of a mark, but when it became actionable and not provenable.

[00:39:13]Otherwise, everyone would just be running around suing everyone and not getting anywhere because they don't have the proof yet. Okay. For the compensation, I mean, they're saying that the reverse confusion is not about lost revenue. It's about erasure. Okay.

[00:39:29]the senior users mark is displaced by the junior users market saturation until the senior users brand is irreversibly subordinate. So they're saying that like she's the senior user Confessions of a Showgirl. She's been using it for 10 years. It's not about Taylor just coming in and paying her some money. Taylor's using it and it eventually is just going to she's going to go away. And that's the whole point of like these bigger people and these bigger artists coming in they can just overload it and you know eventually her whole business is just going to go away and will be in the shadows of now Taylor Swift. Defendant scale does not coexist with the senior's mark. It overrides it. A razasure is not an economic harm. Damages cannot fix it.

[00:40:19]The harm is acute where the infringement product is of poor quality or simply not worth the price.

[00:40:28]This is shade. This is shade, y'all.

[00:40:30]Because they're saying, listen, it's not the quality isn't even that good.

[00:40:35]Therefore, you can pull it and there not be any problem. Okay? Because they're saying the harm is acute where the infringement product is of poor quality or simply not worth the price. Consumers write the album. Consumers write Life of a Showgirl. the album 3.7 out of 10. The merchandise draws repeated quality complaints. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot correct these issues, but through mark similarity is tied to them and she doesn't want to be tied to no 3.7 out of 10. That is crazy shade. I think that's probably like Yeah. My my favorite part is the shade thrown because they're like, "Look, it's not even good. You came out with this thing and it's only 3.7 out of 10, you know, and the merchandise draws repeated quality complaints. So, you're getting complaints all over the place, girl."

[00:41:37]And then they're saying that the defendants Taylor's team frame the injunction as disrupting the status quo.

[00:41:44]It is not. The relevant status quo is the last uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. Before the album, defendants also invoke catastrophic consequences unmed from the actual scope of relief. Defendants merchandise is sold exclusively through their own website, making compliance largely a single channel adjustment. The injunction merely pauses use of the mark. It does not require inventory destruction. It does not reach Swift's broader catalog or career, the 11 album tracks not titled with the contested designation or any planned tour because well there is none. Defendants concerns are overstated. And then Venal did come back and respond and this is the attorneys. Now even though this is 33 pages now I didn't think the answer was very good. They just repeat a lot of the same stuff, but basically it starts with the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed for its failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as a threshold matter. Plaintiff's im impermissible shotgun pleading fails to identify facts supporting the alleged actions of each individual defendant in violation of federal rule civil procedure 8. Plaintiff further fails to plausibly allege any likelihood of confusion between plaintiff's services in connection with her trademark and the life of a showgirl album and related promotional material. Plaintiff also fails to plead any anti-competitive acts as required under the UCL unfair prong.

[00:43:27]I will say I'm sure going up against Taylor Swift's lawyers is not fun. like this lawyer for the artist must feel like the underdog big time because I mean the amount of billions of dollars Taylor has, right? So I mean even congratulations for fighting this case and like standing up for yourself because you know this is a huge thing.

[00:43:52]Basically, this entire thing, I'm going to break it down for you, is they're saying that she didn't put in any kind of real facts or evidence to show that there's confusion coming from the people, but like they said, it isn't about just the products side by side.

[00:44:10]It's about Google searches and hashtags and social media, right? So, we'll see.

[00:44:15]And what they're doing is filing this motion to be completely dismissed from this complaint. The plaintiff brings federal trademark in California unfair competition claims based on her trademark confessions of a showgirl, complaining about the title and associated promotional goods related to Taylor Swift's 12th studio album titled The Life of a Showgirl. The consumers will believe plaintiff's cabaret style goods and services are affiliated with or sponsored by Miss Swift is absurd.

[00:44:46]Indeed, this lawsuit is merely plaintiff's latest attempt to generate publicity by associating herself with Miss Swift. Unsurprisingly, the claims asserted by plaintiff are unsupportive, fail as a matter of law, and should be barred. But really the only thing that they argue over and over and over again is the jurisdiction and lack of jurisdiction. It does say here that Miss Swift TRM UMG and Bravado collectively in her allegations without specifying which defendant are responsible for any particular act despite their highly distinct roles in the music industry and in the creation and distribution of Miss Swift's art. Therefore, because she grouped them all together, they're saying the entire thing should be dismissed. And we know about group pleadings, don't we know about group pleadings? Woo! And here it is, finally.

[00:45:45]Even if the plaintiff could plausibly state a claim, this court does not have personal jurisdiction over Miss Swift or TASRM.

[00:45:55]plaintiff does not allege acts showing that Miss Swift or TASRM expressly aimed conduct at the forum giving rise to plaintiff's claims does not establish the required a nexus between any alleged forum contacts and the asserted cause of action. They go on to say that just because she has been using uh the confessions of a showgirl, um she didn't actually say like where she performed, the frequency, the scale, or the current status of those performances. And you know, she should have put that all in there other than saying that there's a book coming out.

[00:46:30]She doesn't really say give a list of how many times she's performed. And I'm sure they're saying that because they can say, well, like look, this is Taylor Swift. She performs everywhere, you know? And this I think is probably the best argument if I was going to pick one from Swift's team is that they're saying well across Hollywood and across the world people have been using confessions of or of a showgirl and they list some like confessions of has been used by confessions of an SEO, confessions of a a CEO with Kelsey Burgers, confessions of a founder, confessions of a hair stylist. You know, you see it here. So they're like, "So what about all of those other things? You know, they're fine, but not me." The rest of the entire thing almost is literally just trying to get them out just due to jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction.

[00:47:21]They're saying that the plaintiff alleges that Miss Swift is an individual residing in California, but as explained below, that is demonstrabably wrong.

[00:47:30]Miss Swift is a resident and doiciled in Tennessee. They do the same thing for TASMR.

[00:47:37]They're saying that that is also in Tennessee. The UMG is actually a Delaware corporation in Santa Monica as well as bravado. And they go on and on about how everyone is a group pleading.

[00:47:50]Therefore, just because it was all a group pleading, it should be dismissed all on that. Okay? They should have because they grouped everyone in. They don't say exactly who did what for what for what for what. It should be dismissed. Now, the only thing I found interesting about this is how they argue the denial of the US PTO trademark. They say inaccurate application allegations.

[00:48:13]Plaintiff makes several inaccurate statements regarding the US PTO public record for US trademark application serial number 99331566 covering potential uses of the life of a showgirl. While the complaint alleges that defendants filed the application, the application was file filed solely by TASRM of an intent to use basis. Meaning that this TASRM did not represent the US PTO that it was using the life of a showgirl in commerce and did not submit any specimen of use for any of the applied for services or goods. On November 5th, the US PTO issued a non-final office action identifying certain purported deficiencies in the application to be adjusted or overcome before a trademark registration would issue. A non-final office action is exactly what it sounds like, not final, and allows the applicant to submit materials to cure any perceived defects often resulting with a registration issuing. The complaint omits that the office action was expressly non-final, but we just read it and they did say that it was non-final and they had a chance to cure and they never did. So, the fact that they're in here, right?

[00:49:39]I'm just like thinking of that now, it's kind of strange because I just like when it's fresh like that when you read it back to back, they did say that it was non-final, there was a chance to cure and they never did. They just went ahead and kept using it and now they're saying like, "Hello, it was non-final. What does that mean? It means non-final."

[00:49:59]The complaint omits that the office action was expressly non-final and instead characterizes it simply as a refusal without acknowledging that such actions are pre preliminary, subject to response, and do not constitute any final determination. The complaint further fails to recognize that the non-final action is partial and does not even concern goods or services in the vast majority of the applications classes. While plaintiff is correct that the application is currently voluntarily suspended, she ignores that when the suspension concludes, TASRM will have the opportunity to substantively respond to the US PTO's preliminary office action. Well, why is it voluntarily suspended? Why didn't you cure it before you created the album?

[00:50:50]You just went ahead and used it anyway.

[00:50:52]So, very interesting. And like to lie like this and say that they never said that is kind of crazy because we just read it and they did say that they had a non-final judgment. They were waiting for the cure. That didn't happen. So they went ahead with the lawsuit.

[00:51:06]Anyway, the rest of the lawsuit is honestly them trying to fight to say the jurisdiction like for not to not have the jurisdiction. There's some other stuff in there, but mostly I found that that's pretty much what they're going for is lack of jurisdiction. So, we'll see if it gets completely dismissed. I really think this is a very interesting lawsuit. I wonder what's going to happen. I mean, kind of crazy to be going up against Swift knowing the Swifty fan base and just knowing the unlimited amounts of resources that she has. She's a billionaire, right? So, uh that's kind of crazy, but I think the whole thing is crazy. I think applying for the trademark and being denied and being denied for the specific reason that it's too similar to another artist and then not even trying to cure the deficiency but just go ahead and do it anyway. I think to me is just like ew.

[00:51:59]Like it just I I just don't like it. I just don't like it. It seems like a something that uh a Blake Lively would do. You know what I'm saying? But anyway, that's it for me today. I hope you all are having the most amazing day.

[00:52:13]I am going to a play tonight. I'm very excited about it. It's my bestie's son's birthday tomorrow. He's turning six, so that'll be exciting. And then I'm going to Bruno Mars tomorrow night. And then Oh my gosh, that already sounds like crazy because then I have gardening on Sunday morning.

[00:52:29]Your girl's going to be tired. Tired.

[00:52:31]But I am going to try to be here with you tomorrow morning. I'll do a little video if you all have any questions. And yeah, that's everything from me. Please enjoy your Friday. Hey, I hope you're having the most amazing day and thank you so much for spending this time with me and being here and supporting this channel. I truly appreciate it. I'll talk to you soon. I love you. Bye.