Taylor SwiftThe global value of music copyright (both recordings and compositions) reached a new all-time high of US$47.2 billion in 2024.
So brand and usage protection continue to be high stakes. We look at what triggered 12 legal stoushes.
Taylor Swift Vs. Maren Wade
This is the latest, hitting US courts on March 30.
Las Vegas performer Maren Wade who has a stage show called Confessions Of A Showgirl claimed that Taylor Swift’s use of the title The Life Of A Showgirl for her October 2025 album and movie “drowns out” her trademark “until consumers begin to assume that the original is the imitation.”
Wade’s brand started as a column for The Las Vegas Weekly in 2014. A year later she trademarked the name when it expanded into a podcast and the stage show.
It was described in court documents as “candid and often humorous accounts of the challenges and absurdities of a career in the entertainment industry, from getting stuck inside a giant birthday cake to impersonating a Madonna impersonator.”
According to Wade’s attorney, the US Patent and Trademark Office initially refused to let Swift register The Life Of A Showgirl as a trademark in 2025, warning of a possible confusion with Wade’s trademark. “She continued using it anyway” without contacting Wade, he stated.
Don't miss a beat with our FREE daily newsletter
Swift’s album was a monster, in its first week selling 4 million in the US (where it was at the top for 12 non-consecutive weeks) and 5.5 million globally with 1.5 billion streams. In Australia, where it topped the charts, it made history when every song from an album occupied top spots of the ARIA Singles Chart.
The Life Of A Showgirl sold 6.05 million pure copies to become the global best-selling album of 2025, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).
Wade wants a court to block Taylor’s further use of the name, and pay profits, treble damages and attorney fees.
The case was filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California and names four defendants – Swift, TAS Rights Management, UMG Recordings, and UMG’s merch company Bravado.
Katie Perry Vs. Katy Perry
On March 10, 2026, the Australian High Court found for Sydney fashion designer Katie Perry in her battle with US singer Katy Perry.
Hunters Hill-based Katie Taylor (née Perry) can keep using her Katie Perry trademark for her luxury loungewear because, the judges ruled, it was unlikely to be confused with the singer’s branding, did not harm her reputation, and was not a breach of trademark laws.
In 2019, the designer took the case to Federal Court, alleging the singer’s sale of branded clothes, shoes and headwear infringed on her trademark, which she had applied for in 2008.
The singer was born Kathryn Elizabeth Hudson but took her stage name in about 2001. The designer was born Katie Perry but used other names including Katie Taylor.
But the case was strictly over the use of the Katie/Katy name in the market. It also brought into play who had the greater profile as far as the Australian public was concerned.
In 2008, Katy also applied to trademark her name here, but was told to take “apparel” out of her application because of the designer’s existing trademark.
In 2019, Katie brought the matter back to court after Katy toured Australia in 2014 during which her merchandising was sold.
The Federal Court agreed her trademark had been infringed, and ordered the singer’s merchandise distributor to pay damages. This was overturned on appeal, which led to another case this year.
Apple Corps Vs. Apple Computer
Apple Computer founder, the late Steve Jobs, was a tech visionary. But he wasn’t thinking ahead in 1976 when he set up his tech empire. He paid homage to his favourite band The Beatles, by naming it after Apple Records which he set up in London in the late ‘60s.
In 1978, The Beatles’ holding company Apple Corps took action. In 1981 the two parties settled with the understanding that Apple Computer would never enter the music industry.
The peace shattered in 2003. Two years before Apple Computer set up iTunes as a simple music player for Mac computers.
But on April 28, 2003, iTunes widened as a platform that created playlists, synchronised content with handheld devices as iPod, iPhone and iPad, streamed internet radio, and sold music, films, television shows, and audiobooks via the iTunes Store.
For all purposes, Steve Jobs had sailed into the music industry when he wasn’t supposed to. The next sound he heard was Apple Corp lawyers tapping on his shoulder.
The bitter wrangling which followed only ended in 2007 with a settlement that involved a payment of around US$26.5 million (equivalent to $62.6 million in 2025).
The Californian company would drop “Computer” from its name and have rights to all things “Apple” and the apple logo. But certain trademarks would be licensed to Apple Corps when it came to the commercial rights of The Beatles’ continual projects.
The Beatles’ back catalogue finally became available on iTunes in 2010 after years of negotiations. In 2025, it was estimated at $1 billion and generating $70 million to $90 million each year from streaming, licensing and royalties. By last year, Beatles songs had been streamed 22 billion times.
Eminem Vs. Swim Shady
A dispute currently on-going in Australia, it began in 2024 Sydney business couple Jeremy Scott and Elizabeth Afrakoff named their brand of beach shades, bags, towels, and swim shorts Swim Shady. IP Australia approved their trademark last year.
This was disputed by Eminem, who’s also trademarked his alter ego Slim Shady (including Australia), and says the swimwear name is “highly confusingly similar and/or legally identical in sight and sound.”
He argued that he’s been using the Shady name for 25 years and that it is directly linked with his celebrity. So allowing anyone to use a similar name would “dilute” his brand and association.
The Detroit rapper launched multiple actions to stop Swim Shady from entering the US, UK and Japanese markets.
In the first round, on April 1, 2026, Scott and Afrakoff applied to the Registrar of Trademarks to remove two Eminem trademarks Shady and Shady Limited arguing they had not been used to trade over a period of time.
Eminem’s legal team has also taken on clothing company Shadzy, sunglasses brand Shady Character and, in 2023, Real Housewives Of Potomac identities Gizelle Bryant and Robyn Dixon over their podcast Reasonably Shady.
Kanye West Vs. College Dropout Burgers
When young Melbourne entrepreneur Mark Elkhouri went through a bad personal patch, the records of Kanye West that got him through.
So in June 2021, when he started his first burger restaurant in the suburb of Ivanhoe (he also had dessert chain Nuts About Tella) it was called College Dropout after the rapper’s debut album.
Inside the joint was a Kanye themed mural, the Dropout Bear as its logo, and burgers adopting Ye titles like The Graduation (classic beef), Gold Digger (chicken) and Good Morning (breakfast). He also set up a second eatery with that name on RMIT University’s CBD campus.
There was no official endorsement from Ye, but Elkhouri figured he’d see it for what it was – a mark of fandom. Especially since the rapper apparently followed the chain on social media.
But alas, in 2022, came the lawyers’ letter accusing him of deceptive conduct by insinuating an official authorisation. Before the Federal Court date, the bar’s interior was hastily modified, and burger names changed to other college graduates as Mark Zuckerburg, Bill Gates, Brad Pitt, and Steve Jobs.
However after initiating proceedings, neither Ye nor his legal team seemed interested in responding to queries. On March 4, Justice Shaun McElwaine called this “very unsatisfactory conduct” and dismissed the case, ordering the rapper to pay all costs.
Elkhouri, who was in court in a T-shirt stating “I’m not Kanye West” afterwards told TV crews he was handing out free burgers for the next hour, and stressed the rapper was still important in his life. The food went back to Kanye names.
Jellyroll Vs. Jelly Roll
The intention of trademark infringement cases is not that the public is confused by the similarities but could possibly be, especially if they are in music and despite different styles.
The rise of US country star Jelly Roll had a slight curveball when a popular Philadelphia wedding and corporate events band Jellyroll – they played 100 gigs a year, including one at the White House before President George W. Bush – popped up with a writ in hand.
They complained that every time fans and potential clients googled their name, they were directed to the singer’s site instead.
Jellyroll formed in 1980, four years before the singer was born as Jason Bradley DeFord. They got a trademark in 2010 and renewed it in 2019.
DeFord began using the Jelly Roll name as his stage name, coincidentally also in 2010. His mother had given him the nickname as a kid because of his fondness for doughnuts. The name was also adopted at school.
By July 2024, the singer and band leader Kurt Titchenell had a meeting, and Titchenell withdrew legal action after reaching an “amicable agreement.”
Pink Vs. Pharrell Williams
There’s little confusion between the names Pink and Pharrell Williams.
But it became a quizbuck when Williams tried to register a trademark for his P.Inc. business in 2024. Pink thought it was too close. She had applied for the “PINK” trademark in 1999 and officially registered it two years later.
Williams’ team said P. Inc was to be used for “promoting marketing services in the field of music.”
In court documents to stop the trademark getting the official yuh-huh, Pink argued, “P.INC Mark is similar to the PINK Marks in sight, sound, meaning and commercial impression.
“[Williams] and [Pink’s] goods and services are identical and/or closely related. … [Williams] is likely to market and promote its goods through the same channels of trade and to the same consumers as [Pink].”
The P.INC name also received a legal WTF from fashion agency Victoria's Secret, which ran a PINK line since 2002. “Applicant’s mark is highly similar to, and is the phonetic equivalent of, opposer’s ‘PINK’ marks,” its filing said.
Pharrell had another taste of trademark infringement when his longtime friend Chad Hugo took action for his “fraudulent” claim of solely trademarking the name to their production company The Neptunes.
They had, over 30 years, divided the assets, and this felt like a betrayal and an act of bad faith.
A rep for Williams responded that Pharrell had been "surprised" over Hugo's legal action. "We have reached out on multiple occasions to share in the ownership and administration of the trademark and will continue to make that offer.
"The goal here was to make sure a third party doesn't get a hold of the trademark and to guarantee Chad and Pharrell share in ownership and administration."
Anita “Lady A” White Vs. Lady A
Formed in Nashville, Tennessee, in 2006, country rock outfit Lady Antebellum had problems coming up with a name. One day they were doing a photo shoot outside an old southern mansion dating back to the Antebellum era of the US South.
The band related, “One of us said the word and we all kind of stopped and said, Man, that could be a name" and "Man, that's a beautiful Antebellum house, and that's cool, maybe there's a haunted ghost or something in there like Lady Antebellum."
There was a female in the outfit so the “lady” got thrown into the name.
It was a naïve move by the band. The Antebellum era, after all, was one where white landowners in the Deep South made a fortune from using black slaves.
It got the band a lot of bad press for glorifying a time of violence against African Americans.
The band had already long referred to themselves as Lady A for convenience. But in 2020 during tensions and Black Lives Matter protests following police brutality on George Floyd (rallies which they attended), they officially changed it to Lady A.
That brought them in direct confrontation with Seattle blues and gospel singer and activist Anita White who’d used “Lady A” for 20 years.
They sued each other, with White demanding a share of royalties generated under the Lady A name because of her “weakened brand”, or $10 million to change her name – money to go to Seattle charities and Black Lives Matter.
She told Rolling Stone: "They're using the name because of a Black Lives Matter incident that, for them, is just a moment in time.
“If it mattered, it would have mattered to them before. It shouldn't have taken George Floyd to die for them to realize that their name had a slave reference to it.”
They eventually reached a settlement, the details which were never to be made public.
James Reyne & Simon Binks Vs. Bill McDonough
The Music reported that on March 12, 2026, two Australian Crawl founders James Reyne and Simon Binks filed an application to the Australian Federal Court challenging former drummer Bill McDonough’s acquisition of Australian Crawl trademarks.
McDonough acquired these trademarks in 1990 for matters relating to “Entertainment services including artists' agencies, sound recording, radio and television programme production, theatre or cinema productions and amusement centres and parks," while he acquired the trademark for matters relating to “Clothing, footwear and all goods” in 1994.
Reyne and Binks formed Australian Crawl in Melbourne’s surf coast 1978. After the departure of their first drummer, McDonough joined for their first three albums, before being dismissed in 1983. Crawl split in 1986.
According to a March 2026 statement from the band, there was never any consultation or agreement with any members of Australian Crawl in relation to registering the trademarks, and "As such, the founding members do not recognise Bill’s ownership of these assets."
Kylie Minogue Vs. Kylie Jenner
In 2014, Kylie Jenner filed an application to trademark her first name for “advertising” and “endorsement services” in the US.
It was a good try, but that was stopped by Kylie Minogue, who argued she’d been using the Kylie moniker since 1996, before Jenner was born.
During the three-year lawsuit, Minogue argued she’d been selling perfume, clothes and other merchandise advertised with the name “Kylie” and her website domain was Kylie.com. Jenner lost the application.
Speaking on Andy Cohen’s Watch What Happens Live show, Minogue explained, “I’ve spent a lifetime protecting my brand and building my brand, so it was just something that had to be done.”
In other interviews, Minogue went on to say her legal moves had not been personal, only done to take care of business, and that she had a great admiration for Jenner’s achievements.
So much so that she was upset when she heard her legal team called Jenner a “secondary television personality” during her application. I said, ‘Who said that?’ What I heard back was, ‘That’s lawyer speak.'”
New Kids On The Block Vs. USA Today & The Star
In the ‘90s, News America Publishing titles USA Today and The Star ran a poll asking teenagers to call a 900 number to vote for their favourite member of New Kids On The Block.
Ringing the number meant teenagers had to pay. The magazines benefitted financially, although they had no deal with the band. NKOTB sued for misappropriating their trademark.
But the band lost, in what was a game changer for future trademark lawsuits.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit created a “fair use” exemption from federal trademark laws.
It meant that (1) the trademarked name could be used if the product or service could not be identified otherwise. (2) The use of the trademarked name was OK if only “reasonably” used. (3) the user in no way must suggest that the trademark owner endorsed their use.
So in this instance, NKOTB lost the case because the court argued that the two titles could not have identified the band without using their name.
Van Halen Vs. Kelly Van Halen
This was another time trademark laws were tested. In this instance: What rights do ex-partners have?
Van Halen drummer Alex Van Halen’s second marriage (the first lasted two months) was to Canadian-born designer and entrepreneur Kelly Carter in 1984. She took his last name.
They divorced 12 years later, but Kelly kept the famous last name. The couple remained close to look after their son Aric, who became a sports champion at college.
However when Kelly used the Van Halen name to brand her construction and interior design company business (she was already married to her second husband), Alex had to sue her in 2013 to ensure people didn't associate the band with her blankets, robes and accessories for children and adults.
The company that represents Van Halen’s intellectual property, ELVH Inc., claimed her trademark was “confusingly similar to [Van Halen’s trademarks] in sound, appearance and commercial impression” and “likely to cause confusion about the goods’ origin and dilute and cause unfair competition for the band’s brand.”
The stoush was settled amicably in 2015. She could use the name as long as it was not music-related.
