Motion for preliminary injunction filed to prevent Swift from using "The Life of a Showgirl"

追加: 2026-05-19

[00:00:02]Okay. So, um this is Marine Flag's uh motion for a preliminary injunction.

[00:00:10]What she's seeking basically is to stop Taylor Swift from continuing to use um the Oh, I can't remember now. The the life of a showgirl. I was about to say confessions. See, that's that's what she's saying here is like they're sim similar. It's confusing. I was literally about to say confessions of a show girl.

[00:00:31]No, Taylor Swift is the life of a show girl. So, she's trying to basically say, "Hey, can you stop her from using that um because it's confusing. Can at least until this is settled." So, this is a preliminary one. She's also going to be requesting a permanent one as part of her complaint, but this is a preliminary injunction that is just for the purposes of, you know, whilst this action is still pending.

[00:01:01]Okay.

[00:01:07]Um, and then the next video I'll do will be Taylor Swift's quite uh harsh response to it.

[00:01:14]Um, okay. Please take notice that on May 27th, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard in the courtroom of the Honorable Serena Marillo at the United States District Court for the Central District of California, I'm not going to read the address. Plaintiff Marine Flag, professionally known as Marine Wade, will and hereby does move for the court to pro a preliminary injunction against defendants. Taylor Swift, TAS Rights Management, UMG Recordings, and Bravado International Group Merchandising Services. Um, pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 65 and local rule 651.

[00:02:01]as detailed in the proposed order submitted. With this motion, plaintiff seeks an order in joining dependence together with their agents, sorry, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them during the pendency of this litigation from using the life of a showgirl as a trademark or source identifying designation in connection with any goods or services within the classes of goods and services identified to the United States patent. and trademark office independence US trademark application including but not limited to merchandise consumer goods and entertainment services pending final resolution of this matter.

[00:02:52]This motion is made on the grounds that one plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of her claims or at minimum her claims raise serious questions go into the merits. Two, plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if dependents are not enjoined. Three, the balance of equities tips sharply in plaintiff's favor. And four, the public interest favors the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

[00:03:21]This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion. The attached memorandum of points and authorities, plaintiff's complaint, the declaration of marine flag, the declaration of Jamie Parkinan, and associated exhibits, all matters of which the court may take judicial notice. All other pleadings on file in this action and any other further written or oral argument or evidence as plaintiff may present to the court.

[00:03:52]Although not required by local rule 73, all the courts stand in order for applications under federal rule of civil procedure 65. Plaintiffs council contacted council for swift and tas on ma on March 30th 2026 to discuss potential resolution of these matters without judicial intervention. Those discussions were not successful.

[00:04:20]Okay.

[00:04:30]Memorandum of points and authorities introduction.

[00:04:35]In 2024, in 2014, sorry, plaintiff began writing a column in Las Vegas weekly about life as a working performer, the indignities, the absurdities, the giant birthday cakes you get trapped inside and called it confessions of a showgirl. It sounds like a blast.

[00:04:56]It sounds so fun. I'm interested now. I might go and look it up.

[00:05:01]Over 12 years, she built the brand into a live show, a touring production, a book, a podcast, and a federally registered incontestable trademark. For more than a decade, the mark identified a single source. A search for it returned one person. Then, in August 2025, defendants adopted the life of a showgirl.

[00:05:27]Within weeks, the name appeared on drink tumblers, candles, hairbrushes, and garment tags. Defendants built a dedicated retail storefront around it, launched collaborations with numerous national brands, and filed a trademark application across 14 international classes, covering everything from disposable napkins to ponchos.

[00:05:51]They never contacted plaintiff. They never sought her consent.

[00:05:56]Before they chose that name, they had every reason and every resource to know better. For a global commercial enterprise like Dependence, searching the Federal Register for a complex before adopting a new mark is not an extraordinary precaution. It is the baseline. A single searcher would have returned plaintiff's registration.

[00:06:19]If defendants missed it, the USPTO did not.

[00:06:24]On November 5th, 2025, the office refused to register the life of a showgirl, finding it confusingly similar to plaintiff's mark and citing her registration by name and number. But defendants did not withdraw the application. They did not modify the mark. They simply continued selling goods under the very designation. Eight of 10 Google autocomplete results for plaintiff's exact registered mark now redirect to defendants. And that same search on YouTube returns nine consecutive hits for defendants before a single result for Plainter. This is textbook reverse confusion where a junior users commercial dominance systematically displaces the senior users mark in the mind of the public until consumers come to believe the originator is the imitator.

[00:07:17]This motion does not ask the court to break new ground. Plaintiff is a senior trademark holder whose registered incontestable mark is being infringed by the very designation the USPTO refused to register, citing plaintiff's mark as the basis for refusal.

[00:07:35]In bringing this motion, plaintiff has simply followed the lead of the federal agency charged with evaluating exactly this question and followed defendants leads as well. Defendants are among trademark law's most pre prolific enforcers, having filed multiple federal actions claiming irreparable harm when others infringe their marks and obtained injunctive relief on exactly that basis.

[00:08:02]The same principle should apply here.

[00:08:04]Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to preserve her brand while this case proceeds to resolution. I mean, she is making a really good argument. I think this is fair.

[00:08:16]I mean it's quite it's quite striking that Taylor Swift just continue to use it despite you know if like if if that is such strong evidence like where you have literally been refused because it is similar to this patent and they cite the number as well.

[00:08:33]Um but you ignore it and you just continue anyway.

[00:08:40]It's nice that someone is kind of g, you know, giving Taylor Swift a bit of her own medicine here.

[00:08:49]Okay. Statement of facts. Plaintiff owns US trademark registration for Confessions of a Shogo registered in 2015 for entertainment services.

[00:09:00]Okay. So, I'm just um Yeah.

[00:09:04]No, I'll do it later actually. Um, the registration has achieved incontestable status under federal law. Plaintiff has used the mark continuously since 2014, performing her show at venues across the country and expanding the brand into television, a book, a podcast, and digital content.

[00:09:24]In August 2025, dependent adopted the life of a showgirl. What followed was not a single album release but a coordinated commercial roll out. A brand retail storefront, individual product names incorporating the design, garment level garment labels and product tags bearing it and collaborations with national brands.

[00:09:50]dependent through TAS simultaneously filed a trademark application seeking registration of the designation across more than a dozen international classes covering not only musical recordings and live entertainment but consumer goods ranging from candles and drink wear to Christmas tree skirts and disposable plates does feel like overkill I'm going to have to check out these Christmas tree skirts.

[00:10:22]It's piqued my interest now.

[00:10:28]On November 5th, 2025, the USPTO refused res registration, finding the life of a showgirl confusingly similar to plaintiff's mark.

[00:10:40]Um, defendants did not withdraw the application or modify the designation nor contact plaintiff to reach an accommodation of the conflict.

[00:10:49]Instead, on March 3rd, 2026, at defendants's request, the USPTO suspended the application while defendants continue to sell goods under the very mark the office had flagged.

[00:11:03]Plaintiffs did not rush to litigation.

[00:11:07]She permitted the USPTO proceeding to run its course, afforded defendants a reasonable window to conform their conduct to the officer's finding, and watched them do the opposite.

[00:11:20]She retained litigation council, filed suit on March 30th, 2026, and now moves for preliminary relief.

[00:11:29]The confusion the USPTO predicted when refusing defendants application has materialized. Consumers have referred to defendants album by plaintiff's mark used plaintiff's mark as a hashtag when discussing defendants products and treated the two designations as interchangeable all within the brief period of concurrent use.

[00:11:55]Plaintiff's brand has been progressively displaced in the channels through which she reaches her audience. Eight of 10 Google autocomplete suggestions for her exact registered mark now direct consumers towards defendants.

[00:12:10]And on YouTube, nine consecutive results for defendants appear before a single result for plaintiff.

[00:12:17]That displacement deepens with each day defendants program continues. This motion seeks to enjoin it.

[00:12:26]Wow.

[00:12:30]Okay. legal standard.

[00:12:34]A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate one, a likelihood of success on the merits, two, a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, three, that the balance of equities tips in her favor, and four, that an injunction serves the public interest.

[00:12:52]Alternatively, a plaintiff may obtain relief by raising serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff.

[00:13:05]In trademark cases, a showing of likelihood of confusion establishes a presumption of irreparable harm.

[00:13:15]Okay, so the argument the Rogers test does not apply here.

[00:13:25]Defendants will likely contend that the life of a showgirl as the title of a musical work constitutes protected expression exempt from trademark liability under Rogers. The argument fails at the threshold and defendants own filings foreclosure.

[00:13:42]The the Supreme Court in Jack Daniels made clear that Rogers has always been a cabin doctrine and does not apply when an alleged infringer uses a trademark in the way the Lannam act most cares about as a designation of source for the infringers's own goods. That holding applies even when the use of a mark has other expressive content.

[00:14:08]The Ninth Circuit applied this holding in Punch Bowl, reversing its own prior decision and holding that Rogers is foreclosed where the defendant uses a mark to identify and distinguish its products. A trademark application is itself straightforward evidence of a source identifying use.

[00:14:29]District courts in this circuit have followed suit in D Lisa. I may have mispronounced that. A reverse confusion case. The court held Rogers no longer applicable where Disney used a modified version of the plaintiff's registered mark as a character name in Toy Story 3 and then deployed that name to sell consumer goods.

[00:14:59]uh that the mark originated in an expressive work was immaterial. The dispositive question was whether Disney used it at least in part to designate source. It did.

[00:15:16]The question then is whether defendants used the life of a showgirl as a source identifier. The own trademark application answers it.

[00:15:28]Defendants trademark application.

[00:15:32]Defendants filed a US trademark application seeking registration of the life of a showgirl across 14 international classes. The application does not cover only consumer merchandise. It covers the songs and the album.

[00:15:49]It covers concerts.

[00:15:52]Entertainment service so class 41 entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances.

[00:15:58]And it covers much more. Candles, drink wear, aprons, aprons, hair brushes, puzzles, Christmas tree skirts, tough stuff toys.

[00:16:12]Defendants have thus represented to the federal government that the life of a showgirl functions as a trademark for the recordings, for the performances, and for every category of consumer goods they sell under the name. A trademark application is straightforward evidence that the applicant uses a designation to identify and distinguish its products.

[00:16:32]This is not an isolated filing. It is dependent business model.

[00:16:37]TAS manages more than 170 active or pending trademark registrations on behalf of Swift. dependent of sort registration for virtually every album release, built branded merchandise programs around each one, and operated dedicated retail storefronts to sell goods under those designations. They treat each album title as a commercial brand because that is what it is.

[00:17:03]Having claimed the life of a showgirl as a source identifier for musical recordings and live performances before the USPTO, defendants cannot disclaim that characterization before this court.

[00:17:17]Defendants product names and labeling.

[00:17:21]The evidence corroborates what the application already establishes.

[00:17:25]Defendants operate a dedicated retail web page labeled the life of a showgirl shop, not as an act of creative expression, but as a retail channel deploying the designation to sell a coordinated line of consumer goods. Within that storefront, dependent use the designation as part of individual product names. The life of a showgirl tumbler, the life of a showgirl hairbrush, the life of a showgirl candle.

[00:17:55]Dependent further affix the designation to product labels and interior garment tags in the positions customarily reserved for source identification.

[00:18:05]At every level of the retail operation, the storefront, the product name, the label inside the garment, the designation is doing the work of a trademark.

[00:18:17]Defendants's own litigation history.

[00:18:21]Swift and TAS have repeatedly filed federal actions seeking injunctions and seizure orders against the sale of merchandise bearing Swift associated designations near concert venues. Taking the position that such designations function as trademarks when affixed to consumer goods and see um as consu and obtaining federal court orders on that basis.

[00:18:49]Defendants cannot m maintain that position when enforcing their own rights and disclaim it when defending against the rights of others.

[00:18:59]Under Jack Daniels and its progeny, when a designation is used, at least in part for source identification, Rogers does not apply.

[00:19:08]Defendants have used the life of a showgirl as a source identifier across every commercial category in which they operate and have represented as much to the federal government.

[00:19:19]Defendants must therefore meet the infringement claim on the usual battleground of likelihood of confusion.

[00:19:27]Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. I got to say I do think she's got an a very strong case here. Um but yeah.

[00:19:37]Um okay. So to establish trademark infringement, plaintiff must show that she is one, the owner of a valid protectable mark and two that the alleged infringer is using a confusingly similar mark. The first element is undisputed. plaintiff owns US trademark registration for confession of a showgirl which has achieved incontestable status providing conclusive evidence of plaintiff's exclusive right to use the mark.

[00:20:08]The second element turns on likelihood of confusion which the ninth circuit evaluates under the eight factor craft test.

[00:20:18]So similarity of marks favors the plaintiff.

[00:20:22]The following axioms define and delimit the similarity analysis. One, similarity is best evaluated by appearance, sound, and meaning. Two, marks should be considered in their entirety and as they appear in the marketplace. And three, similarities weigh more heavily than differences.

[00:20:43]And whereas here goods are closely related, a diminished standard of similarity applies.

[00:20:54]Uh side by side, the similarity is self-evident.

[00:21:03]The life of a show girl, confessions of a show girl. Yeah, it is confusing.

[00:21:10]Both marks share the same syntactic structure, a narrative framing word resolving in the phrase of a showgirl.

[00:21:19]Both consist of standard characters and unadorned text without stylation or design elements.

[00:21:27]That is largely how consumers encounter them in practice as plain text in search bars, social media feeds, and hashtags.

[00:21:37]A consumer scanning a screen or search result will see the same dominant phrase in the same structural arrangement sound. Both both marks resolve on the same four syllable phrase of a showgirl which carries the rhythmic and pneummonic weight of each designation.

[00:22:00]The introductory words differ but occupy the unstressed framing position in a phrase that culminates in a shared distinctive ending.

[00:22:09]In casual speech, the register in which consumers actually discuss entertainment, both marks naturally shorten to the same anchor, the showgirl album.

[00:22:20]The introductory words drop away. The shed's element is what stays.

[00:22:26]meaning and commercial impression.

[00:22:29]Both works are built on common template narrative frame plus of a showgirl.

[00:22:36]Confessions of and the life of are interchangeable. Title constructions framing devices of which the English language has no shortage. Memoirs of diary of adventures of neither framing phase is distinctive on its own. What gives each mark its commercial identity is the phrase that fills the template in both marks? That phrase is of a showgirl. The same words in the same construction resolving on the same noun.

[00:23:06]That phrase is not a common formulation.

[00:23:08]A search of the USPTO database returns only two marks using the construction noun of a showgirl. Plaintiffs and defendants both promise the same thing. an insider's account of a performer's experience. One frames that account as confessions, the other as the life, but the subject is identical. The perspective is identical. The overall commercial impression and intimate behind the curtain narrative about a showgirl is the same.

[00:23:41]The confusion evidence confirms this is how consumers process the marks. In every documented instance, the pattern is consistent. Consumers retain of a showgirl and substitute the introductory word. They call defendants album confessions of a showgirl.

[00:23:58]Consumers use plaintiffs mark as a hashtag for defendants goods. In no documented instance did a consumer retain the framing word and substitute showgirl for another term. The sha the shared phrase is what consumers anchor to. That is what makes it dominant.

[00:24:19]The descriptiveness counterargument defendants may argue that showgirl is descriptive in the entertainment context making the introductory words confessions and the life are truly distinctive elements. The argument fails. Neither Mark uses showgirl descriptively as neither party offers traditional showgirl services. Both uses require the imaginative leap that defines a suggestive mark. But even if the term carried some descriptive resonance, descriptive elements can still dominate consumer perception, particularly when they are the only concrete noun in marks otherwise composed of abstract framing words. The confusion evidence establishes that dominance empirically.

[00:25:08]The USPTO's independent analysis The USPTO reached the same conclusion. The office found the marks similar in appearance and similar in sound. And because the consumer is likely to focus on the dominant noun, the term showgirl, the resulting commercial impression is very similar, concluding that the proposed mark could be viewed as an extension of the registrance brand. That determination was made not in the context of this litigation but by the federal agency charged with evaluating exactly these questions in the ordinary course of examining defendants application.

[00:25:44]This factor favors plaintiff.

[00:25:50]Proximity of goods and services favors plaintiff.

[00:25:54]We examine the relatedness of the parties goods because the more closely related the goods are, the more likely consumers will be confused by similar marks. The standard does not require identical products. Goods and services are related when they are complimentary, sold to the same class of purchases or similar in use and function. The inquiry is whether the public would attribute the parties respected respective offerings to a single source.

[00:26:24]Defendant's use of the life of a showgirl spans two commercial spheres and both are closely related to plaintiff's services.

[00:26:34]So entertainment services the overlap is direct. Plaintiff's registration covers entertainment in the nature of live stage performances in the field of music, singing and dancing as well as entertainment media production.

[00:26:48]Defendants trademark application seeks registration in the same class and encompasses every category plaintiff's registration covers. The USPTO confirmed this overlap, finding that both marks are used in connection with general entertainment services that involve musical and/or theater performances and that neither the registration nor the application contain any limitation on these entertainment services. This is not a close question.

[00:27:20]Consumer goods. Trademark rights are not confined to identical goods. They extend to any goods related in the minds of consumers.

[00:27:30]In the entertainment industry, audiences expect performers to sell branded merchandise in connection with their live shows. It is, as Bravado's president has described, the number two source of revenue after ticket sales.

[00:27:43]Indeed, defendants have built their commercial module on that expectation and have said so under oath. In a prior verified complaint, TA represented to a federal court that branded merchandise is sold in direct affiliation with Miss Swift's name and image at concert venues in conjunction with Miss Swift's live performances.

[00:28:05]Given these ingrained expectations and the mark similarity, consumers who encounter a Tumblr bearing the life of a showgo and who are separately familiar with confessions of a show girl live performances will naturally associate the two. Either that plaintiff is affiliated with the merchandise or in the reverse confusion scenario here that plaintiff's brand is derived from the one on the Tumblr.

[00:28:30]That is the injury trademark law exists to prevent.

[00:28:36]The USPTO's analysis, while addressed to a narrow question, points to the same direction. The office found an inherent connection between plaintiff's entertainment services and defendants musical recordings, concluding that consumers familiar with plaintiff's mark would be likely to believe that registrant is authorizing applicants use of the mark. If that inference holds for recordings, it holds at least as well as for consumer goods sold under the same designation.

[00:29:06]In the entertainment industry, merchandise and performances are not separate markets. They are two sides of the same commercial relationship and consumers recognize them as such.

[00:29:18]This factor favors plaintiff.

[00:29:26]Strength of the marks favors plaintiffs.

[00:29:32]In a reverse confusion case, the strength of the marks analysis takes a different form. We evaluate the conceptual strength of the senior users mark and compare it to the commercial strength of the junior users mark.

[00:29:45]In the reverse confusion scenario, it is the junior users commu commercial dominance that generates the likelihood of confusion. The stronger the junior users marketplace presence, the more likely consumers are to assume the senior users brand is affiliated with or derive from the sen from the junior user.

[00:30:05]on conceptual strength. Confessions of a showgirl is suggestive as discussed above a showgirl is not used descriptively in either mark. Both employ the term evocatively requiring the imag imaginative leap that defines a suggestive mark.

[00:30:25]Plaintiff's federal registration independently evidences its distinctiveness and the incontestable status of plaintiff's mark serves as conclusive proof that the mark has secondary meaning on a commercial strength of the junior user. The disparity is overwhelming and in a reverse confusion case that is precisely the point.

[00:30:52]The life of a showgirl is backed by a dedicated management company, a major label distributor, a global merchandising operation generating over $900 million in annual revenue, and national brand collaborations reaching millions of consumers.

[00:31:12]In IO, the Ninth Circuit found this factor satisfied where the junior users mark was commercially strong as evidenced by the extensive coverage of its launch in national media outlets.

[00:31:25]Defendants commercial strength is of a categorically different magnitude. This factor favors plaintiff at the preliminary injunction stage.

[00:31:38]This factor sorry evidence of actual confusion favor plaintiff at the preliminary injunction stage. This factor is generally not of significant relevance given the difficulty in proving actual confusion at this point in litigation.

[00:31:55]Despite these diminished expectations and before any opportunity for discovery or a consumer survey, plaintiff has evidence of confusion arising from the brief period of concurrent use.

[00:32:09]The most probitative instance is direct.

[00:32:12]For instance, a viewer of a YouTube video discussing the dispute between the parties who described having attended plaintiff's confessions of a showgirl production stated publicly, "I was I personally was confused by Taylor Swift's album title that is a consumer in the relevant market who knew someone who knew plaintiff's brand from firstirhand experience who encountered defendants designation and was confused by the two Additional evidence documents the mark's functional interchangeability in the manner that reverse confusion predicts.

[00:32:48]Consumers on Tik Tok and Instagram have used plaintiff's mark as a hashtag when discussing defendants products. Those consumers are not simply misre misremembering an album title. They are associating plaintiff's mark with defendants goods treating it as an identifier for defendants. The LAN Act protects against uses likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the affiliation, connection or association between parties, not merely confusion at the point of purchase.

[00:33:24]When a consumer uses plaintiff's mark to tag defendants product, the marks have failed to perform their source distinguishing function regardless of whether that consumer would, if prompted, identify the correct title. In a reverse confusion case, that is precisely the injury the senior users mark is observed is absorbed into the junior users's commercial identity until consumers assume the original belongs to the newcomer.

[00:33:54]Every instance in which a consumer uses plaintiff's mark to identify defendants's product advances that erosion.

[00:34:04]The confusion evidence is corroborated by plaintiff's displacement with u displacement in the digital channels through which she reaches her audience.

[00:34:13]When a consumer enters plaintiff's exact registered mark into Google, eight of 10 autocomplete suggestions direct the consumer toward defendants. On YouTube, nine consecutive results for defendants appear before a single result for the plaintiff.

[00:34:30]Plaintiff does not contend that algorithmic behavior is itself confusion. But autocomplete predictions are not random. They reflect the actual aggregate search behavior of millions of consumers.

[00:34:46]This displacement is the mechanism through which reverse confusion operates. Defendants overwhelming commercial presence is progressively overwriting plaintiff's mark in the digital infrastructure consumers use to discover her.

[00:35:01]This factor favors plaintiff.

[00:35:05]Marketing channels use favors plaintiff.

[00:35:10]Marketing channels converge when the general class or purchases exposed to the products overlap.

[00:35:16]Both parties offer entertainment to the same consumers. Audiences for live performances, music and entertainment content. Both distribute through the same digital platforms including television, YouTube and social media, and both perform in overlapping markets across the United States.

[00:35:36]This factor favors plaintiff.

[00:35:42]Degree of consumer care favors plaintiff.

[00:35:46]This factor considers the sophistication of the consumers, including whether a reasonably prudent consumer would take the time to distinguish between the two product lines.

[00:35:58]Purchasers of inexpensive goods are likely to exercise less care, thus making confusion more likely. Consumers encounter both marks most frequently through free online content where the degree of care is at its lowest. A consumer scrolling through search results or a social media feed is making a split-second judgment based on general impressions, not pausing to investigate provenence.

[00:36:27]It is in precisely this environment that the documented confusion has occurred.

[00:36:34]Confusion is equally likely at the retail level. The party's consumer goods, t-shirts, candles, barrettes, books are inexpensive items that invite impulse buying, not careful deliberation. This factor favors plaintiff.

[00:36:52]Defendant's intent favors plaintiff.

[00:36:57]Intent is established if the defendant knew of the mark, should have known of the mark, failed to conduct a reasonably adequate trademark search, or otherwise culpably disregarded the risk of reverse confusion. The record leaves no room for doubt.

[00:37:14]Defendants are charged with constructive notice of plaintiff's mark, which has been on the principal register since 2015.

[00:37:22]Their own clearance infrastructure makes actual knowledge a near certainty. TAS manages more than 170 active or pending registrations on behalf of Swift.

[00:37:34]Trademark clearance is foundational to an operation of this scale.

[00:37:38]Defendants either found plaintiff's mark and proceeded regardless or failed to conduct the search that basic practice demanded. Either way, the risk of confusion was culpably disregarded.

[00:37:54]Any remaining ambiguity was eliminated on November 5th, 2025 when the USPTO refused registration of the life of a showgirl based on a likelihood of confusion with plaintiff's mark identifying her registration by name and number.

[00:38:11]Defendants response was not to reconsider. They did not file a response arguing the marks were indistinguishable. The ordinary course were an applicant who believes the refusal is wrong. Instead, they requested suspension, effectively parking the application while continuing to sell goods under the refused designation.

[00:38:32]This factor strongly favors plaintiff.

[00:38:37]The likelihood of expansion favors plaintiff.

[00:38:41]In as much a trademark owner is afforded greater protection against competing goods, a strong possibility that either party may expand his business to compete with the other will weigh in favor of finding that the present use is infringing.

[00:38:58]When goods are so closely related, any expansion is likely to result in direct competition.

[00:39:04]The parties already operate in overlap in markets as the proximity analysis demonstrates.

[00:39:11]But even setting that overlap aside, this factor independently weighs in plaintiff's favor because both parties continue to expand under their respective designations.

[00:39:23]Dependents have already extended the life of a show well beyond a musical release into consumer goods and commercial collaborations with national brands. Their trademark application makes the intended scope explicit.

[00:39:36]registration across more than a dozen classes covering goods ranging from ponchos and disposable napkins to Christmas tree skirts and aprons in addition to musical recordings and live entertainment. This is not a designation tethered to an album. It's a commercial brand designed to reach every corner of a consumer's life.

[00:39:57]Defendants have not yet toured in support of this release, but when they do, the designation will enter the live market, the live entertainment market, the very market in which plaintiff has performed Confessions of a Showgirl for over a decade.

[00:40:13]On plaintiff's side, the trajectory of the Confessions of a Showgirl brand has been one of steady organic expansion from a column to a live show, book, podcast, and video content. Dependence trademark application now claims rights in every one of those categories and dozens more ensuring that wherever plaintiff expands her brand dependent confusingly similar designation will already occupy the field.

[00:40:41]This factor favors plaintiff.

[00:40:46]Even if this court were to find that plaintiff has raised only serious questions go into the merits rather than a full likelihood of success, relief would still be warranted. Under the Ninth Circuit sliding scale approach, a preliminary injunction may issue where serious questions are combined with a balance of hardship that tips sharply towards the plaintiff. Here plain tip is a solo performer whose sole trademark is being subsumed by a global commercial enterprise. The balance of hardships could not tip more sharply.

[00:41:24]Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm.

[00:41:29]In 2020, Congress restored the presumption of irreparable harm to the LAN Act, providing that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction in a trademark case is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm upon a finding of success of likelihood of success on the merits.

[00:41:50]That presumption places the ultimate burden of production on the question of irreparable harm onto the alleged infringer.

[00:41:59]Defendants may overcome the presumption by demonstrating, for example, that plaintiff delayed in seeking relief, that her injuries are purely pecuniary, or that defendants have ceased the infringing activities. None of those circumstances obtained here.

[00:42:16]No delay. Upon learning of defendants adoption of the designation in August 2025, plaintiff consulted with council.

[00:42:25]During this period, plaintiff continued to perform and create content under her brand while monitoring dependent use of the designation. Rather than rushing to litigation, plaintiff permitted the USPTO examination process to run its course. When the USPTO refused dependent application on November 5th, 2025 and then suspended it at dependent request in March 2026, it became clear that defendants had no intention of conforming their conduct to the officers's determination.

[00:42:57]Plaintiff retained legal litigation council filed suit on March 30th, 2026 and now moves for preliminary relief.

[00:43:06]That timeline, monitoring an active administrative proceeding, affording defendants a window to cure and filing when they expanded instead reflects diligence, not delay. And that's quite important actually, like just to sort of make a point here, right? Firstly, litigation is incredibly expensive. And when you're going up against Taylor Swift who has unlimited resources and you are, you know, you don't just don't have that money or power, what what commonly happens is the bigger party will then just, you know, file and file and file and just frustrate the case and you end up spending all your money on frivolous motions and dealing with them and then you run out of money and have to withdraw the case anyway. So if this plaintiff hasn't got much resources, you know, she wants to be sure of her case and litigation should be a last resort.

[00:43:58]Like there should not be a rush to go and file a lawsuit. You should be trying to deal with these things. You should monitor to make sure that actually you have got a case and she's done all the right things. I don't see that there is a delay here at all. But um I I I'm I'm happy with the way she's kind of conducted this. as she says, she let an administrative process play out first.

[00:44:23]Well, that that's kind of critical anyway because she's now heavily relying on that process and the outcomes of it.

[00:44:31]So, she done the right thing.

[00:44:35]Uh, and I think yeah, the one of the big things she points out is like, you know, um, the Taylor Swift's application was refused. She then requested that it be suspended. She didn't um try to renew it, um change anything. She didn't try to appeal it, nothing. She just asked for the application to be suspended and then she's continued, you know, business as usual.

[00:45:03]has no intention of, you know, adearing to the outcome of uh of um the USPTO's um decision. So that's that. And again, these are strong points to bring and put into a lawsuit, but you got to wait for them to happen. So she's done the right thing, not purely pecunery.

[00:45:32]So plaintiff's central injury is not lost revenue. It is the progressive erosion of her marks source identifying function. In a reverse confusion case, the harm is not that the plaintiff loses customers to defendants. It is that the plaintiff loses the meaning of her mark entirely.

[00:45:52]No retrospective damages award can restore a mark's source identifying capacity once consumers have come to associate it with someone else.

[00:46:01]That risk is acute here where a plaintiff, a solo performer with a single trademark, faces a junior user backed by a dedicated brand management company overseeing more than 170 registrations, a major label distributor, and a global merchandising operation.

[00:46:21]The goodwill plaintiff has built over 12 years of continuous use cannot be recaptured through damages once it has been dissipated.

[00:46:33]And no damages award can recalibrate a search algorithm or undo the associations consumers form as a result.

[00:46:44]Not ceased. Defendants use of the life of a showgirl as a trademark is ongoing.

[00:46:50]As of the filing of this motion, defendants continue to operate a dedicated retail storefront under the designation and to sell goods bearing it. The commercial program is expanding, not contracting.

[00:47:02]The presumption of irreparable harm is unreuted.

[00:47:09]The balance of equities favors plaintiff. All right, we are getting close to the end of this. Now, the balance of equities requires the court to balance the competing claims of injury and consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief. Here both the harm to plaintiff and the burden on defendants weigh decisively in plaintiff's favor.

[00:47:35]The harm to plaintiff absent relief is existential.

[00:47:40]Confessions of a show is not one mark of many many for plaintiff. It is the only one she has. She has built her professional identity under it for more than a decade and she has no portfolio of alternative brands, no corporate backing and no global marketing operation to compete for consumer attention. Dependent have all of these that asymmetry is directly relevant to the equities and it tips in plaintiff's favor.

[00:48:10]If defendants use continues unchecked, the harm is not merely economic. It is the progressive erasure of plaintiff's ability to be recognized as the source of her own brand. That harm deepens with each day the commercial program continues and becomes increasingly harder to reverse.

[00:48:34]The burden on defendants is self-inflicted and manageable.

[00:48:38]Plaintiff does not minimize the practical implications of the requested relief. Defendants have built a commercial program around the life of a showgirl and an injunction would require them to modify it. The burden must be assessed in context. First, it is a burden of dependent own making.

[00:48:55]Dependent clearance dependent clearance infrastructure, the same operation that manages more than 170 trademark rep registrations would have identified plaintiffs mark before the designation was adopted. The USPTO confirmed the conflict when it refused defendants application on November 5th, 2025, identifying plaintiffs registration by name and number.

[00:49:21]Defendants expanded the program anyway.

[00:49:25]Every dollar spent after the refusal was spent with knowledge that the designation was confusingly similar to a mark belonging to someone else.

[00:49:35]Courts routinely discount self-inflicted harm in this analysis.

[00:49:42]Second, the injunction is scoped to what defendants themselves have claimed as trademark use. It reaches goods and services within the classes identified in defendants own trademark application.

[00:49:54]It does not affect any other dependent other trademarks or products.

[00:49:59]The goods that do bear the designation need not be destroyed or recalled. They only need to be removed from active sale pending resolution.

[00:50:11]Finally, the time in favors early relief. Dependents have not yet tooured in support of this release. No dates have been announced. No tickets have been sold. No reliance interests in live entertainment plaintiffs core market have attached.

[00:50:28]If the court acts now, it can prevent the designation from entering that market. If the court waits, dependence will expand further. Consumer associations will deepen and the equities will shift.

[00:50:47]And I just I think right it's important like Ashley is obviously our PR guru. Um she actually has a post on it. So I'm going to just show you it because it's not just the name, right? I just want to show you how similar this is the same colorins even.

[00:51:13]You know, it's it's not just the name sounds similar. Taylor Swift has actually used the same font colors, the the kind of teal blue, um the red, uh you know, words, text, and to some degree even the pose, you know, and the outfits like it it's just so close, right? And the only thing that's different is the PE people.

[00:51:48]But that's what this this lady is kind of saying is like, "Well, Taylor Swift is a giant. You know, I don't stand a chance. And if she keeps going, I'm gonna lose the only brand I have."

[00:52:00]And that is not fair. And she's right.

[00:52:07]But I think for a visual, cuz I love visual representations, right? To see it in action, how how much is actually being taken from this lady.

[00:52:17]Um, and it's not, it goes beyond just, you know, the actual words, you know, of a showgirl.

[00:52:27]Um, all right. Uh, bond.

[00:52:31]Pursuant to federal rule of civil procedures 65 C, the court should also set a bond commensurate with the circumstances of this case. Plaintiff is a solo performer who has brought this action to protect a protect the single trademark under which she has built her career. A bond set at a level that would effectively foreclose preliminary relief would deny plaintiff access to the very remedy trademark law provides.

[00:53:00]The injunction requires defendants only to cease using a designation the USPTO has found confusingly similar to plaintiff's registered mark. The risk of a wrongful injunction is low. The burden of compliance is manageable within defendants existing operations and plaintiff's ability to vindicate her rights should not turn on her ability to post a bond calibrated to the scale of defendants's enterprise.

[00:53:27]Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court exercise its discretion to set a bond reflecting those circumstances.

[00:53:37]A preliminary injunction serves the public interest.

[00:53:42]The public interest in not being deceived or confused about a source or identity favors granting injunctive relief.

[00:53:50]The public is being confused now. The US PTO reached the same conclusion when it refused defendants application on the likelihood of confusion grounds.

[00:54:00]Um and I am going to just take you to that actually. Let's do that.

[00:54:08]Okay.

[00:54:15]I'm going to go just to the um There you go.

[00:54:20]Trademark Act section 2D partial refusal.

[00:54:24]Registration of the applied for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with international classes 9 and 41. the mark in US registration number and that's that's um the plaintiff's registration number there.

[00:54:39]Confessions of a showgirl.

[00:54:43]So there you go.

[00:54:46]And they talk about it. I'm not going to go through all of this like there sub subheading there is the marks are confusingly similar. I'm going to just go to the bits that she has highlighted.

[00:54:59]Oh, right. The marks are identical in part since they both consist of the terms of a showgirl. So, the marks are similar in appearance and similar in sound.

[00:55:10]Somewhat.

[00:55:12]Yes. Some somewhat similar.

[00:55:14]So, the marks are similar in appearance and similar in sound. What? Somewhat similar.

[00:55:21]Sorry, I'm just reading it as it is literally written. It makes no sense.

[00:55:25]Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the compared marks are confusingly similar.

[00:55:34]While the terms life and confessions are different, the resulting commercial impression by combining the life with of a showgirl and confessions with of a showgirl is very similar. In neither case is there the idea of a familiar phrase in colloquial American English.

[00:55:53]So, a consumer is not likely to have a specific reaction to either mark. Instead, the consumer is likely to focus on the dominant noun, the term show. The shared term contributes more to the commercial impression of the marks. In fact, the proposed mark could be viewed as an extension of the registrance brand.

[00:56:24]Turning to the relatedness of the goods and services, an analysis of the parties goods and services and their trade channels reveals that both marks are used in connection with general entertainment services that involve musical and or theater performances.

[00:56:39]Both marks refer to music performances and theater productions. Neither the registration nor the application contain any limitations on these entertainment services.

[00:56:49]As to the relatedness of applicants class 9 goods and the registrants class 41 services, musical artists can be the source of both live musical performances and recordings as evidenced by the websites of various musicians. They commonly promote both their musical performances and their recordings on their websites as shown by the attached excerpts from the following websites.

[00:57:16]In fact, there is an inherent connection between the recordings in class 9 and the performances recorded on them, which is evidence of relatedness as well.

[00:57:28]Thus, purchasers familiar with the registrants mark confessions of a showgirl entertainment performances upon encountering applicants musical recordings and performances offered under the very similar mark, the life of a showgirl, are likely to believe that registrant is authorizing applicants use of the mark and assume that that applicant's goods and services are therefore licensed by or in some way associated with registrant Uh, I'm not sure if that's Yeah, I'm just going to go back now cuz I think that's it. So, that is the uh decision from USPTO to uh Taylor Swift's attempt to uh register the the trademark for life of a show girl.

[00:58:25]Okay.

[00:58:31]Um, numerous instances of consumer confusion have been documented.

[00:58:37]Consumers are referring to dependent album by plaintiff's mark using plaintiff's mark as a hashtag for dependent products and encountering such encountering search results that treat the two designations as interchangeable.

[00:58:52]Every day that defendants continue to use a confusingly similar designation on goods sold to the public extends the confusion further.

[00:59:00]Enjoining infringing conduct promotes the public interest in protecting trademarks generally. That interest does not diminish because the senior user is small and the junior user is large.

[00:59:12]Indeed, the doctrine of reverse confusion is designed to prevent the calamitous situation where a larger, more powerful company user the business identity of a smaller senior user.

[00:59:24]A preliminary injunction should issue.

[00:59:28]So, for these reasons, blah blah blah, you should give us what we've asked for.

[00:59:32]Um, incredibly well drafted filing. Um, sets it out wonderfully.

[00:59:41]Um, I'm I will have a look through Taylor Swift's response. I do know it was quite aggressive.

[00:59:49]Um, but I think, you know, like I say, when I showed you the the side by side from Ashley's ex account, um, you know, it is it's is it's not just the actual words, it is the look, the image. It's, you know, it's like she's taken the whole thing and just swapped out Marine Flag for Taylor Swift.

[01:00:16]Um, and maybe thought, well, if I change a word here or add a word there, then that'll be enough. And it's not. It's like plagiarizing, you know, someone's entire coursework or essay for, you know, university or something and then changing the odd word here and there thinking that the, you know, the detection software is not going to pick it up. It does pick it up. And it's obviously it's been, you know, the federal authority that specifically looks for these um similarities has picked it up, you know, and then she's not just stopped there. She has actually gone and looked for, you know, service users, consumers, fans of both of these artists who have expressed confusion and she's come with, you know, a whole treasure trove of um evidence to back up exactly what she's saying. This is in very strong filing. Um, and I do think at at minimum there should be a preliminary injunction at least until this is all resolved because I do think that her complaint has got serious merit.

[01:01:32]Okay, I'm going to come back with my next video which will be Taylor Swift's response.