Taylor Swift's 'Life of a Showgirl' Trademark Bid Refused a Second Time

Taylor Swift's attempt to trademark the title of her album The Life of a Showgirl has run into a second refusal from the US Patent and Trademark Office, according to a report published on 25 October 2026. The agency issued the second, non-final refusal in September 2026, Bloomberg Law reported, in a dispute centred on Las Vegas performer Maren Wade's earlier Confessions of a Showgirl brand. The decision does not force Swift to rename the album, and she can keep using the title while the question remains open.

At a glance

Mark in dispute	The Life of a Showgirl (Swift) vs Confessions of a Showgirl (Wade)
Wade's registration	US Reg. No. 4,792,015, filed May 2014, registered 11 August 2015
Latest decision	Second non-final USPTO refusal, September 2026
Lawsuit	Filed March 2026, California federal court; Swift sought dismissal in September 2026
Effect on the album	None on use — the refusal is not final
Next ruling or date	Not announced in the reports

Why it matters

Swift is known for fiercely protecting her intellectual property. Her company, TAS Rights Management, holds more than 160 trademark registrations, covering album titles and career phrases, according to Bloomberg Law. That record is why this dispute stands out: one of the world's most famous performers cannot simply claim a name an earlier user already holds. The case turns on a doctrine called reverse confusion, where a smaller, earlier brand is said to be swallowed by a much bigger later user, until audiences assume the original is the imitation. It also tests whether an album title counts as a protected expressive work, or whether an earlier mark's trademark rights can restrict it. Merchandise sits at the centre of that argument, because the name appears across products and retail channels, not only on the record.

Key details

Wade's brand began in 2014 with a column titled Confessions of a Showgirl for the Las Vegas Weekly. It grew into live performances, a touring production, a book and a podcast, and her federal registration, granted on 11 August 2015, is now incontestable. Swift's team applied to register the title, and before the lawsuit the Patent and Trademark Office had already refused it, citing a likelihood of confusion with Wade's mark. In March 2026 Wade sued Swift and associated companies in a California federal court, alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and an injunction barring Swift and her companies from using the name and imagery. Wade's lawyer said in a statement that a solo performer who spent twelve years building a brand should not have to watch it disappear because someone bigger came along.

Her attorneys argued in court filings that the idea of consumers confusing a global pop star's album with a Las Vegas performer's work is absurd, according to Variety. In September 2026 Swift asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit as nonsensical, in a 16-page reply filed by attorney Max N. Wellman and co-counsel at Venable, Law Commentary reported. The filing argued consumers would not plausibly believe Wade's cabaret performances, podcast or book are connected to Swift, and that the album is a protected expressive work. It also argued album merchandise is a natural extension of that work rather than a separate infringing use, and challenged whether the Los Angeles federal court has jurisdiction over Swift at all. Wade's side argues the opposite: Swift's team was on actual notice after the trademark office's refusal but proceeded anyway, and Swift's popularity has made it harder for audiences to distinguish Wade's original brand from her far larger operation.

What the September 2026 decision does and does not do is often misunderstood. A second non-final refusal means the application has hit another obstacle, not a final determination. It does not automatically prevent Swift from continuing to use the album title, and it does not decide the lawsuit. The two tracks are separate: the trademark office decides registration, the California court decides infringement, damages and any injunction. No ruling on Swift's dismissal request has been reported, and no date for the next step in either track is stated in the reports.

What to watch next

Two questions now decide the story: whether Swift's team answers the refusal with arguments or evidence that overcome the confusion finding, or whether it hardens into a final one. The second is whether the California court accepts Swift's argument that the suit is nonsensical, or lets Wade's claims proceed towards trial. Until either body rules, the practical position stays unchanged: the album keeps its name, merchandise keeps selling, and the trademark remains unregistered. Fans should treat any social media claim that Swift has been ordered to rename the album as false: no such order has been reported.

For readers in Nepal

This is a United States trademark matter, and it does not change the availability of Swift's music. Nepali listeners can keep streaming the album as before, and the dispute has no bearing on any concert or release in Nepal, none of which has been announced. The takeaway here is narrower: when a global celebrity legal fight trends online, the court record and the trademark office's own actions are the reliable sources, while viral posts claiming a forced rename are not.

Background

The fight began shortly after the album's release, when the name spread across merchandise, packaging and retail channels, and Wade argued audiences began assuming she had copied Swift rather than the other way round. That reversal is the core of her reverse-confusion claim: the senior user's twelve-year-old mark is drowned out by the junior user's overwhelming commercial presence. Swift's camp rejects the premise entirely. One side presents a small, registered brand defending twelve years of work; the other presents a global artist whose album title, in its lawyers' view, is an expressive work trademark law cannot fence in. The trademark office's second refusal keeps both arguments alive, and the court's answer on dismissal will show which one it takes seriously first.