ListNook

PwnimuS Mar 30, 2026 +1904

Funniest part about all this, if you google Confessions of a Showgirl all google links mention Taylor and her album because of the lawsuit

1904

cannacupcake Mar 30, 2026 +827

May also mention it because of Wade literally using Swift’s album all over her socials and in tags, changing the aesthetic of her socials to match the album when it was released… But sure, she can go off on how people will get confused after making it seem connected herself lmao.

827

PalindromemordnilaP_ Mar 30, 2026 +324

It's not the first time someone has sued Taylor for publicity. Won't be the last.

324

Front-Pomelo-4367 Mar 31, 2026 +134

Evermore Park, the best Jenny Nicholson video

134

Skill3rwhale Mar 31, 2026 +21

TY for my evening watch! She absolutely crushes any theme park related deep dive or overview.

21

MesaCityRansom Mar 31, 2026 +4

For those who don't know she has several followups to the Evermore video on her Patreon. Not AS good as the first one, but definitely worth a watch if you liked that video.

4

bluemondayss Mar 31, 2026 +6

I pay I think €2 a month for Jenny’s Patreon and it’s so insanely worth it, there’s hours and hours of weird entertainment on there! I really recommend it.

6

Kiro-San Mar 31, 2026 +5

I dunno, the Dear Evan Hanson video is right up there for me.

5

PalindromemordnilaP_ Mar 31, 2026 +19

Exactly what I was thinking, haha!

19

Robobvious Mar 31, 2026 +6

Oh that’s the involves LARP park right? The actors had all their time bogarted by delusional visitors with main character syndrome iirc.

6

jwm3 Mar 31, 2026 +6

And a delusional owner who vastly overestimated his ability to design and run a park.

6

eagleonapole Mar 31, 2026 +1

Omg the church easter plays with various pop culture characters doing the crucifix pose is pretty great

1

xclame Mar 31, 2026 +31

So this is just another version of that guy that keeps suing Nirvana for using that baby picture of him (With his parents permission) for their Nevermind album.

31

MarlenaEvans Mar 31, 2026 +23

Yeah and who went out of his way to tell people he was the baby and only got mad when the band didn't want to hang out with him.

23

CommieLoser Mar 31, 2026 +7

Bro hanged baby dong for a band and now they don’t want to hang out? I’d sue

7

MishterJ Mar 30, 2026 -4

A trademark she’s been using since 2014… sure..

-4

KennyL0gin Mar 31, 2026 +18

It's not an illusion, Michael.

18

Brief-Turnover8161 Mar 31, 2026 +17

fr that whole situation is wild, like how tf does a lawsuit link to her album

17

Potential_Ad3896 Mar 31, 2026 +1

Thats also because Taylor promotes her own work. Thats how she gets songs to be number 1 and stay on the charts. Everyone knows this.

1

flamewave000 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Which is also just reinforcing the plaintiff's point. She does hold the trademark, and the patent office did rule that Taylor's own trademark application would violate the pre-existing one and therefore denied it. It's the exact same reason why American smarties are called rockets everywhere outside the USA, or why Microsoft had to rename SkyDrive to OneDrive. Preexisting and established trademarks. This lady has a very valid case. I will likely get downvoted to hell for saying so, but that is the fact. She has a brand, a trademark, and is legally speaking being harmed by the album title. So as the article says, either Taylor needs to buy the trademark, or fight in court. This really is not anything like the nirvana baby guy. He's frivolously suing for personal injury, this lady is suing for legitimate trademark infringement and has a very strong case.

1

Aeon1508 Mar 30, 2026 +866

If she can have a trademark on a part of her title "of a showgirl" Then Disney should be able to sue her for using "confessions of a" (teenage drama queen)

866

BenDisreali Mar 31, 2026 +133

1962's *Confessions of an Opium Eater* would like a word with Disney.

133

schattentanzer Mar 31, 2026 +75

To which Thomas De Quincy would like a word. Author of “Confessions of an English Opium Eater” published 1821.

75

BenDisreali Mar 31, 2026 +18

IMDB gives Mr. De Quincy his proper billing as the writer of the source material, so I assume those words have long ago been had.

18

schattentanzer Mar 31, 2026 +9

Very nice. I didn't look at IMDB. Just know of the 1821 book due to having read it.

9

FukThePatriarchy1312 Mar 31, 2026 +1

Disney would still win because of their army of lawyers

1

beardowat Mar 31, 2026 +1

How about after Confessions of an Embittered Soul's turn.

1

javier_aeoa Mar 30, 2026 +150

Doesn't Lindsay Lohan has a song called "confessions of a broken heart"?

150

iwenttothesea Mar 31, 2026 +78

Generally, you can't trademark or enforce copyright on just the title of the song alone.

78

Principal_Scudworth Mar 31, 2026 +51

There was about a 3-year timespan back in the ‘90s with three very different songs named “Creep” being incredibly popular.

51

clementleopold Mar 31, 2026 +38

TLC, Radiohead, and…

38

Bluest_waters Mar 31, 2026 +49

stone temple pilots

49

MayorScotch Mar 31, 2026 +7

I can just hear radio dj’s drawing out a “and up next we have Creep by…………(long pause)………(insert one of the bands)”

7

VernalAutumn Mar 31, 2026 +1

I have three different songs called Try in my regular playlist

1

Modern_Leper93 Mar 31, 2026 +14

"Let It Be", an album by, most notably, The Beatles, and less notably by The Replacements, is a perfect example of album titles not being copyrightable.

14

SeeingEyeDug Mar 31, 2026 +5

It’s also difficult to trademark generic dictionary words that are not brand names because it can easily be abused.

5

FukThePatriarchy1312 Mar 31, 2026 +9

Thank goodness, imagine trying to find titles that have never been used before for all your songs.

9

accioLOVE86 Mar 31, 2026 +5

Fall Out Boy does a great job of this on their first 3 albums, lol

5

FukThePatriarchy1312 Mar 31, 2026 +1

I'm gonna start a band in a completely different genre and start recycling all those titles, lol

1

clementleopold Mar 31, 2026 +1

Never heard of Lindsay singing, but this reminds me of that song *Owner of a lone-LY HEART…* (Repeat 16x)

1

PureLock33 Mar 31, 2026 +7

Also the london callgirl TV show. and the book i believe.

7

liquordeli Mar 31, 2026 +58

There are literally dozens of books, movies, & TV shows with the title "confessions of a [noun]". I dont know how this woman got hers trademarked in the first place

58

archiangel Mar 31, 2026 +6

Confessions of a shopaholic too

6

Mark316 Mar 31, 2026 +1

Shopaholic has entered the chat! ...and tied the knot!

1

Msmadmama Mar 31, 2026 +7

7

Starbuck0304 Apr 1, 2026 +1

It’s a trademark.

1

KingQu- Mar 31, 2026 +1

Usher?

1

Maxpowr9 Mar 31, 2026 +1

Then the Disney adults should be able to ride Pinocchio's nose.

1

xclame Mar 31, 2026 +1

That' not how things like this work. When you get a trademark you get it for specific uses. So in the case of Taylor Swift, she would only have the trademark in relation to music. Disney having a tv show or a movie with the same or similar name would be totally fine as the two things don't directly cross each other. One of the main points of trademark is to avoid confusion. Nobody is going to hear Taylor's album and then see the show and think the two things are connected.

1

Squirrelking666 Mar 31, 2026 +1

Don't forget the high quality 1970s 'Confessions of a' films. (Window Cleaner, Driving Instructor etc.)

1

CashBrilliant5366 Mar 31, 2026 +1

The marks have to give a similar commercial impression (invoke a certain similar idea) for it to be a trademark problem. “The life of a showgirl” and “the confessions of a showgirl” give way more similar impressions than “confessions of a teenage drama queen” and “confessions of a showgirl.” When the goods/services are identical, the marks can be less similar.

1

wikipediabrown007 Mar 31, 2026 -1

Except that’s not how trademark law works. One is the dominant element, the other is not.

-1

AndrewRnR Mar 30, 2026 +564

Looked her up on Instagram. Her most recent post from 2025 she used Swift’s music. Post before that she is talking about Swift. And then another Swift post and then another. Didn’t expect that. lol but as expected she’s getting ripped apart in her comments

564

powerlesshero111 Mar 31, 2026 +286

So, it's like that guy who was the baby on the Nirvana Nevermind Album who resurfaces every few years to sue them for money, only to lose and go back into his hole.

286

AkilleezBomb Mar 31, 2026 +187

The Nirvana guy also regularly brags about being the Nevermind baby, then tries to sue for trauma.

187

Webcat86 Mar 31, 2026 +19

Doesn’t he also have Nevermind tattooed across his chest?

19

PureLock33 Mar 31, 2026 +3

Maybe the band tattooed it on his chest when he was a baby?

3

Webcat86 Mar 31, 2026 +5

That definitely seems like something Grohl would do.

5

heyitsYMAA Mar 31, 2026 +54

What a baby.

54

ThaSoft Mar 31, 2026 +2

Patrick Vieira begs to differ

2

sitoverherebyme Mar 31, 2026 +5

![gif](giphy|vFRmmufjLdJ9S|downsized)

5

wildinthewild Mar 31, 2026 +5

She has multiple posts about her anticipation for the Taylor swift album and an “in my showgirl era” post as well with hashtags “ts12”. Very odd

5

Starbuck0304 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Because she was using Taylor so that her instagram videos and pics would end up in 280 million Swift fans’ algorithm. Using Taylor Swift to boost her own brand and then suing Taylor for it.

1

CrimsonJoker13 Mar 31, 2026 +1

It's Evermore all over again, including using Taylor's music in your product without permission

1

SourceUnusual2479 Mar 30, 2026 +979

I’m suing Swift for using “1989” as one of her album titles. I was alive that year and take offense.

979

_teach_me_your_ways_ Mar 30, 2026 +118

Easy Class action lawsuit. She should go in hiding

118

Child_of_the_Hamster Mar 30, 2026 +15

I was not alive at that time, but my parents were. Am I entitled to compensation for pain and suffering?

15

TheLegendTwoSeven Mar 31, 2026 +9

I thought she was supposed to be a fast runner because of her last name, so I bet everything on her to win the gold medal for the 100 meter dash but she didn’t even enter the race…

9

jakethereaper121284 Mar 31, 2026 +2

Naw she did, she was just so Swift no one saw her there.

2

Olbaidon Mar 31, 2026 +35

I was born that year; that year is my birthright. I was born before Taylor in said year therefor I get first dibs.

35

hunteroutsidee Mar 31, 2026 +9

Same I’m in Feb you?

9

Olbaidon Mar 31, 2026 +14

Oof March, I must officially pass the rights off to you.

14

hunteroutsidee Mar 31, 2026 +12

We can start a class action lawsuit

12

Olbaidon Mar 31, 2026 +5

Deal 🤝

5

thoph Mar 31, 2026 +4

Sorry. January. Must assert dominance.

4

HopelessCineromantic Mar 31, 2026 +1

October over here. Guess I'll go into this corner and quietly seethe until you all drop dead and I'm first in the line of succession.

1

Thing_in_a_box Mar 31, 2026 +5

I want to sue her over that because I have a hard time searching for Polaroid equipment made in 1989.

5

PureLock33 Mar 31, 2026 +3

China suing her for reasons it'd rather not talk about.

3

Dimpleshenk Mar 31, 2026 +2

I'm suing Lady Gaga for stealing my idea for her name. I was saying "gaga" from an early age.

2

cornixt Mar 31, 2026 +1

Now you were alive in the year 1988a.

1

Jimi_Hotsauce Mar 31, 2026 +1

I'm suing over red because I have multiple items in my home that are red.

1

PrincessLen89 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Half of it’s in my username, surely I have a case?

1

SnooCauliflowers9874 Mar 30, 2026 +367

It kind of reminds me of when Donald Trump tried to trademark the phrase “you’re fired“. Or when Paris Hilton tried to trademark the phrase “that’s hot”. Stop. As if people hadn’t been saying those words for a century. I mean, get over yourself. Wade is not the only showgirl out there with a story.

367

costryme Mar 30, 2026 +214

Or when Kylie Jenner tried to trademark 'Kylie' when Kylie Minogue has been a thing since before Jenner's birth.

214

Aggressive_Fig5046 Mar 30, 2026 +239

Best part is when Kylie Minogue's team filed an opposition labeling Jenner as a "second class reality tv personality"

239

orlock Mar 31, 2026 +83

You're a gay lawyer and have the opportunity to release a bitchkreig on behalf of Queen Kylie. I imagine queues around the block.

83

SteelRoses Mar 31, 2026 +30

Immediately adding “bitchkreig” to my repertoire, lol

30

orlock Mar 31, 2026 +9

Sadly for me, I can't claim it for myself. I found it in *He Died with a Felafel in his Hand* by John Birmingham (the fun book, not the miserable movie).

9

Maniactver Mar 31, 2026 +2

I'm claiming it if you won't.

2

costryme Mar 31, 2026 +1

You just love to see it.

1

tonysnark81 Mar 30, 2026 +62

Or Gene Simmons trying to trademark the devil horns.

62

Carroteyeisamyth Mar 30, 2026 +56

The reaction channels trying to trademark the term "react"

56

javier_aeoa Mar 30, 2026 +14

Oooh, the Fine Bros. It's been a while for sure.

14

Insiddeh Mar 31, 2026 +1

Man... I miss that time.

1

MissSassifras1977 Mar 30, 2026 +27

![gif](giphy|6y0XsNAMw7LsQ)

27

Gonzostewie Mar 30, 2026 +10

The Father of the Horns.

10

TheRealBaronOfMyr Mar 31, 2026 +7

well, technically his grandmother taught him the horns.

7

ETDuckQueen Mar 31, 2026 +9

Ronnie James Dio, what a GOAT you are!!!!! :)

9

alexjaness Mar 30, 2026 +6

that was the weirdest thing. "Look your honor, I was ripping off Spider-Man and doing the web hand on the cover of an album, so pretty much the same thing, right"

6

ButTheseGoToEleven Apr 1, 2026 +2

Without actually being the main guy who popularized it, or "invented" as Gene claims. "Then again, if you ask Gene he'll probably try to tell you he invited OJ and breathing too" - Ronnie James Dio

2

Starbuck0304 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Mad respect for gene simmons though. He was a trademark guy. He was into everything that would promote and secure the KISS brand. Taylor is kinda like that, though no one criticizes Gene for doing that. They praise him for being a businessman.

1

FarmboyJustice Mar 30, 2026 +19

**This serves as notice that you are in violation of our client's trademarked phrase Get over yourself™ and that use of said phrase is subject to licensing...** \-- some lawyer somewhere

19

sixpackabs592 Mar 31, 2026 +10

When lebron wanted to trademark taco Tuesday

10

MonkeyBoatRentals Mar 30, 2026 +48

As the article says, Wade does have a trademark on "Confessions of a Showgirl", and Swift tried to get a trademark on "The Life of a Showgirl" which was rejected because of the similarity to that prior trademark. I think its all a bit silly, but Swift may have to settle this one.

48

Caelinus Mar 31, 2026 +19

Trademark rejections are not done by a court though. They will pay attention to that, but they are not obligated to come to the same decision.

19

witchspoon Mar 31, 2026 +28

She may. But the fact that this confessions showgirl person has been actively been putting Taylor Swift stuff on her own page for a while. So to do that then complain that people are confusing the two is…a choice. And it’s a choice that may come back to bite her a bit.

28

Xyex Mar 31, 2026 +10

>and Swift tried to get a trademark on "The Life of a Showgirl" which was rejected Then why is it still pending? 🙃 The article is literally wrong.

10

itoddicus Mar 31, 2026 +5

I'm not a trademark lawyer, but the trademark office's job is mostly to look for conflicts, followed by a limited set of circumstances for rejection. They basically don't look too deeply into things, unless the trademark filing is challenged. But if there is no percieved conflict and no challenge a lot of things get trademarked erroneously. This is when the courts step in.

5

Spiritual_Life_5902 Mar 31, 2026 +2

Yes, and part of what the court must decide is whether or not CONFESSION (a statement or act of admitting that you have done something wrong, illegal, or feel guilty about. Admission or avowal.) has the same meaning as LIFE (the period between birth and death, or the state of being alive. It also refers to the existence of a person, a way of living, or the energy and activity shown by people, animals, and plants.) Apparently the trademark office thought these words had the very same meaning, but legally they do not. I am NOT a Taylor Swift fan at all. I don't like her music. However I am a justice fan and this nonsense seems very unfair to me.

2

Spiritual_Life_5902 Mar 31, 2026 +1

Based on what I heard about Wade's behavior, no Taylor Swift won't.

1

Hairy_Selection8568 Mar 31, 2026 +9

If you think the artists are having a say in what their lawyers are trying to trademark then you're a fool. This is usually just due diligence by lawyers to see if they can eek out some money for their client, on both sides. T Swift tried trademarking 1989 and Shake It Off, both were silly attempts but it hurt them in no way to try and secure it to make a F*** LOAD of money by owning it. This is the opposite with Wade trying to get a settlement out of T Swift's team instead, Wade doesn't give a shit about the actual name but her lawyers could get her paid.

9

_dictatorish_ Mar 31, 2026 +2

Or when Taylor Swift trademarked 1989? Or tried to sue a company because they had "Swift" in their name?

2

Starbuck0304 Apr 1, 2026 +1

It depends. There are a lot of things with swift in the name. Trademark is the “mark”, the stylized font, the logo per se. It also is categorized. A gothic theme park around wizards and dragons called evermore would not be confused with a music album called evermore of folk / indie pop music, by a reasonable person. So they both can co-exist. Plus, the theme park was using Swift’s music at the park without permission…. So there was that. Trademarks are like that. So, recently there was the Swift Home trademark issue. It’s not that someone had the word Swift in it, but it was stylized to look almost identical to Swift’s own stylized use of her name. It would be very possible to confuse the two, by a reasonable person, due to the similarities in style. There was a copyright issue with folklore and a logo. Taylor actually agreed her’s was too similar and changed the folklore logo. I don’t see Confessions of Showgirl vs Life of a Showgirl to be similar enough, for a reasonable person, to think they are connected. Except the fact that Maren Flagg used Taylor’s music and hashtagged her to get into the algorithm of Taylor fans, thus using Taylor’s music to promote her OWN brand. Yes, that is a payday. Like everyone else, they just want some of her money and to drag her.

1

Erikthered65 Mar 31, 2026 +2

Or a failing theme park suing Taylor Swift for using ‘their name’ as an album name.

2

havelock-vetinari Mar 31, 2026 +2

Didn't Kim Kardashian try to copyright the word Kimono?

2

mvandemar Mar 30, 2026 +10

Except she already had a trademark, and the trademark office declined Swift's application as being too similar to Wade's. You should read the whole article.

10

Xyex Mar 31, 2026 +6

>and the trademark office declined Swift's application You mean the one that is still live and pending and no official judgment has been made on yet? Just because Wade's lawyers lied and it got put into an article doesn't make it true~

6

mvandemar Mar 31, 2026 +2

And with just a teeny bit of research you could see the actual rejection letter: [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn99331566&docId=SUSLT20260303131043#docIndex=0&page=1](https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn99331566&docId=SUSLT20260303131043#docIndex=0&page=1) Of course her lawyers are fighting it but it was in fact rejected, so no, they did not lie.

2

Sea-Ad7789 Mar 31, 2026 +4

you realize it’s not about the term ‘life of a showgirl’ but about how similar the whole aesthetic is to this girl’s brand, right …? i read the article, the girl’s lawyers have a fair point. they basically are saying because of who taylor is & her popularity level there is a real chance of this girl’s 10+ year buisness being drowned out under Taylor’s appearance in the landscape.

4

-blundertaker- Mar 31, 2026 +1

She didn't just try, she successfully trademarked "that's hot" and defended it against Hallmark, but its current status is "Abandoned - no statement of use filed"

1

peachteayo Apr 1, 2026 +1

And Taylor Swift trying to trademark everything Swift. lmao. Get over yourself

1

justbunnies Mar 30, 2026 +62

I’m suing over Red because that’s my favorite color to paint my nails.

62

Gonzostewie Mar 30, 2026 +19

I'm a ginger and I have a suit in motion right now. Please withdraw your complaint.

19

BaileeXrawr Mar 31, 2026 +32

The amount if people who don't know what a showgirl is in the comments is insane.

32

Caelinus Mar 31, 2026 +6

She is not literally one, but the metaphor is extremely obvious. And metaphor is constant in music lyrics. It is mostly just a thematic choice though.

6

drunkbusdriver Mar 30, 2026 +108

Oh shit this lady is going to make Listnook defend Swift.

108

accioLOVE86 Mar 31, 2026 +6

“A solo performer who spent twelve years building a brand shouldn’t have to watch it disappear because someone bigger came along.” Girl 😐😐😐 literally no one knew who tf you were until you sued Taylor, be so for real. GOODBYE!

6

thepeachgs Apr 1, 2026 +1

She's literally admitting she's suing because Taylor is bigger than her. She openly said it, wow. Sit down 🪑 whiny lady, that's how it works. By her logic, Taylor being such a big deal means she needs to never do a damn thing, cause she might accidentally overshadow someone else. The level of self victimization is wild. Some ppl need to grow tf up.

1

ShvettyBawlz Mar 31, 2026 +21

Will be dismissed. Stupid lawsuit

21

Karf Mar 30, 2026 +205

So frivolous.

205

grubas Mar 30, 2026 +70

> The filing states that when Swift applied to register The Life of a Showgirl as her own trademark, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office declined because they ruled that it was confusingly similar to Wade’s existing trademark.

70

quothe_the_maven Mar 31, 2026 +30

You can’t go by the trademark office. Like a decade ago they started handing out trademarks for really common things to anyone who asked. For example, they let someone trademark “backpacking,” even though that’s a general description of an activity millions of people have done for decades. They even let a vendor trademark “Yosemite,” who proceeded to sue the national park service for selling things that said…Yosemite. The park that they own, and which is a Native American word, anyways. The courts have been trying to sort out that mess for a while now. This is just another part of that.

30

Mock333 Mar 31, 2026 +7

"That's hot"

7

Tvdinner4me2 Mar 31, 2026 +1

You can't go by the trademark office for trademark infringement?

1

Caelinus Apr 1, 2026 +1

It might be unintuitive, but no. They just do a cursory determination to see if there is anything disqualifying it (which they do not even do well all of the time due to volume and other considerations) and then approve or deny. It is not that involved of a process. There are literally millions of trademarks. If there is a dispute to goes to court who will actually evaluate the merits and make a determination. At this point you can pretty much trademark anything, even things that legally cannot be protected, so long as you fill out the paper work correctly. That does not mean you can actually enforce the trademark, because a lot of stuff is just literally not enforceable. (See the backpacking thing in the comment you are responding to.)

1

Xyex Mar 31, 2026 +3

And the filing is incorrect. You can literally look it up and see that it's still pending, not denied.

3

HansonWK Mar 31, 2026 +1

Well that's because Swift is challenging the ruling, but it was denied. The way trademarks generally work is that there is a huge list of reasons to automatically deny, like its quite likely no human even was involved in denying her application. The expectation is then that if the person who was denied thinks their trademark isn't the same they will challenge the ruling and the case will be looked into. Being rejected tends to be step one for getting a trademark.

1

grubas Apr 1, 2026 +1

It's being challenged, I'm not an IP lawyer, but that is a huge part of Wades complaint. If she was just trying to claim, "I did Showgirl first thats my thing!" Id agree that it was frivolous.

1

mistersuccessful Mar 30, 2026 +44

What a joke. I hope she gets laughed outta court

44

TesticleMeElmo Mar 31, 2026 +24

She’s just hoping she gets a bunch of free publicity for her podcast

24

powerlesshero111 Mar 31, 2026 +5

She probably will. They denied Taylor's trademark on "The Life if a Showgirl" due to similarities with "Confessions of a Showgirl", but realistically, a patent lawyer could argue that they are two very distinctive things. Like someone else said, it infinges on "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen", which they can bring up in their suit.

5

Xyex Mar 31, 2026 +7

>They denied They did not.

7

sfxmua420 Mar 30, 2026 +18

What is she worried about? That the worlds biggest pop star and a mistake association of her to this smaller brand is going to hurt the smaller brand? Lol

18

PureLock33 Mar 31, 2026 +6

One is a billionaire, so its a high stakes gamble for a payout that would last someone the rest of their life.

6

extralargefriespls Mar 31, 2026 +3

Funny part i think the thing is a newspaper column

3

[deleted] Mar 30, 2026 +49

[deleted]

49

Red-Cloud-44 Mar 30, 2026 +60

Swift tried to register the trademark but got turned down because it was too similar. So it's not so ridiculous from a legal point of view.

60

Xyex Mar 31, 2026 +3

>Swift tried to register the trademark but got turned down No she didn't.

3

Tvdinner4me2 Mar 31, 2026 +1

She did though? >The filing states that when Swift applied to register The Life of a Showgirl as her own trademark, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office declined because they ruled that it was confusingly similar to Wade’s existing trademark.

1

grubas Mar 30, 2026 +4

Yeah, the entire article hinges on the patent office issue, which is actually somewhat meaty.

4

killerbake Mar 30, 2026 +25

“Confessions of a showgirl” “Life of a showgirl” I mean. It’s gonna get thrown out.

25

stackdatdough Mar 30, 2026 -1

If you actually read the article, you’ll know that it’s only referring to the “of a showgirl” part. So no, it won’t easily get thrown out

-1

radioactivebeaver Mar 30, 2026 +23

How is stealing the "Confessions of a..." part not doing the same thing? Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, Confessions of a Shopaholic, Confessions of a Campus Bookie...dozens of them. Seems fair that if you just change who is confessing and no one has an issue, then you should be able to change what the showgirl is talking about just the same, whether she is making a confession or singing about life.

23

Rockman171 Mar 30, 2026 +16

That was my first thought, the original name was already a derivative phrase lol

16

U_Sound_Stupid_Stop Mar 30, 2026 +5

Well, that made me think of the "For Dummies" series and so I googled it and apparently that first part is trademarked so it's not unheard of at least.

5

radioactivebeaver Mar 30, 2026 +10

Yeah, I googled "confessions of a" and hit shopping, there's at least 35 different results from books to perfume, confessions of a rebel, a Shopaholic, a band nerd, drama queen... No idea how that part is allowed but "showgirl" can't be used by anyone but this lady?

10

U_Sound_Stupid_Stop Mar 30, 2026 +2

I mean, it annoys me too but there's plenty examples, like when I learned "are you ready to rumble" is trademarked or how Pokemon trademarked the concept of fighting monsters... For what it's worth, I don't think she'll win

2

DylanRed Mar 30, 2026 +4

we could go with, 'Showgirl's Life'

4

MC_chrome Mar 30, 2026 +4

“Of a showgirl” is incredibly vague If anything, the original trademark should be invalidated on that basis alone

4

killerbake Mar 30, 2026 +1

I did read the article. It’s exactly why

1

dinosaur_rocketship Mar 30, 2026 +1

“The filing states that when Swift applied to register The Life of a Showgirl as her own trademark, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office declined because they ruled that it was confusingly similar to Wade’s existing trademark.” Too bad the trademark office disagrees with you.

1

WrathOfMogg Mar 30, 2026 -1

If the biggest pop star on the planet names her album almost the same exact title as your brand, such that the copyright office refused to give said pop star the copyright to the title because it was so similar to your copyright that it would be confusing to consumers, but the pop star went ahead with the title anyway with no copyright protection? Yep just too weak I guess 😂

-1

PioneerRaptor Mar 31, 2026 +6

Just an FYI: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/99331566 The trademark has not been denied. It’s still pending. So what her lawyers are claiming is factually wrong. The latest news is that they found an earlier trademark: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/98905117, that is still pending. Since that one was filed first, and also contains showgirl, it has to be examined first. Additionally, that 2nd one is about perfume and nothing to do with the person suing Swift.

6

ButTheseGoToEleven Mar 31, 2026 +5

Not a Swiftie or anything, but I mean come on it's just an album title. https://preview.redd.it/h4fch2faxasg1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8ac1a5287be15c2f9a347c77ccd537cd3c9908fd

5

Lightbluefables8 Mar 30, 2026 +4

This website is hot garbage. I literally can't use it on my device

4

Oxissistic Mar 31, 2026 +3

You can sue anyone at anytime for anything. Doesn’t mean you have a winnable case.

3

coys21 Mar 31, 2026 +8

Taylor is a showgirl. Words have actual definitions.

8

Coriolanuscangetit Mar 31, 2026 +2

It’s weird bc the term showgirl has been around forever, does anyone really own a term that is part of the common vernacular?

2

Jlx_27 Mar 31, 2026 +2

Today on: Stupid shit.

2

emjayyyyyyyyyy Mar 31, 2026 +2

If she’s broke, just say that 🥰

2

witchspoon Mar 31, 2026 +2

So they “settle” that T.Swift has to rename her album. Change it to “the life of a…” and put stickers on the existing unsold copies. It’s not like it can REALLY be changed, just legally no longer allowed to be produced. It will also give yet another commodification of Taylor swift merch. Much like the “butcher” album covers from the Beatles.

2

Beautiful-Buy99 Mar 31, 2026 +2

this shit is so dumb

2

Remarkable-Owl-5712 Mar 30, 2026 +3

I mean Taylor is a showgirl.

3

SillyAlternative420 Mar 31, 2026 +2

“A solo performer who spent twelve years building a brand shouldn’t have to watch it disappear because someone bigger came along.” I mean, that's *literally* how our society works. "Life of a .." and "confessions of a..." Are substantiallly different, even if it were a like for like comparison, which it's not.

2

Shirolicious Mar 31, 2026 +2

Dumb trademarks. Simple everyday words(generic things) shouldnt be trademarked. Imagine “life of a fish” and then oopsie, cant use that because some t*** trademarked it. Life of a showgirl can apply to anyone who is a showgirl no? Why you can even trademark dumb shit like that.

2

thepeachgs Apr 1, 2026 +1

Right. This lady is seriously just a whiny baby cause Taylor is bigger than her. That's seriously it.

1

ashleyshaefferr Mar 31, 2026 +1

What's a showgirl

1

CashBrilliant5366 Mar 31, 2026 +2

I’m a trademark attorney and I think the lawsuit has teeth as far as similarity goes lol. If anything the only thing that would protect Taylor here is that her mark is the title of a single work of authorship (one album). But by all means all you with no legal experience will make fun of it just to bow down to Taylor 🙄 SHES NOT RIGHT ALL THE TIME FOLKS

2

ernster96 Mar 31, 2026 +1

All I know is that if I ever want one of her albums all I have to do is head to target because apparently that’s all they sell: Taylor Swift and K-pop.

1

cleo345800 Mar 31, 2026 +1

Not sure what this has to do with anything lol. You can buy most large-scale releases at almost any chain retailer.

1

yeezusosa Mar 31, 2026 +1

Oh

1

justwhatmatters Mar 31, 2026 +1

She has that nepo baby energy of everything is mine. Me me me!!!

1

TMacWall Mar 31, 2026 +1

If she didn’t file a suit over the much more similarly titled mini series “Confessions of a Vegas Showgirl” why do this unless it’s to get money or, disturbingly, Taylor’s attention? Taylor’s legal team will find every movie, book, and song that mentions “Showgirl” and “Confessions” and use the fact that she didn’t sue anyone over those or even send cease and desist orders as evidence that this is nothing but an attempt at a money grab.

1

Umayummyone Apr 1, 2026 +1

“Confessions of”’and “The life of” are just so generic.

1

Entire_Site5072 Apr 1, 2026 +1

She supposedly spent a decade building and caring about this brand but doesn't even own the Instagram handle for it.

1

ballinb0ss Apr 1, 2026 +1

Taylor should just cut this chick a 100 million dollar check for feminism then sign an NDA beyond that and be done with it. Stupid for her not too.

1

luv2ctheworld Mar 30, 2026

Oh, America... Land of the free (to sue for any ridiculous reason).

0

HalogenFisk Mar 31, 2026

I get her gripe. Anyone seeing her act "Confessions of A Showgirl" advertised would guess it was a Taylor Swift Tribute show.

0

Xyex Mar 31, 2026 +2

No one intelligent would.

2

Taylor Swift sued over ‘The Life of a Showgirl’ by actual showgirl

💬 Send a Message

189 Comments