Taylor Swift is famous for many things: catchy choruses, the record-shattering Eras Tour, and a branding strategy so sophisticated that intellectual property law courses across North America routinely use her as a case study. But this time, Swift may have missed a beat.

Maren Wade, American singer, songwriter, writer, and comedian, has recently sued Taylor Swift for alleged infringement of her registered US trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” which she claims is confusingly similar to Swift’s use of “The Life of a Showgirl.”

From confessions to confusion

The US Patent and Trademark Office recently refused Swift’s trademark application for “The Life of a Showgirl” due to a likelihood of confusion with Wade’s “Confessions of a Showgirl” mark.

Wade’s lawsuit notes that both marks share an essential element (i.e. “of a Showgirl”), have the same overall commercial impression, and are used in the same markets (i.e., entertainment, merchandise) and directed at the same consumers. The lawsuit also relies on “reverse confusion,” where a larger “junior [i.e. later] user” (like Swift) adopts a similar or identical mark to a smaller “senior [i.e. earlier] user” (like Wade), resulting in the senior user’s mark being drowned out due to the junior user’s overwhelming commercial presence.

Benefits of registration and alternative options

Owning a trademark registration provides significant benefits. It gives you exclusive, nationwide control to use your mark with the associated goods and services, enforce your rights against infringers, and license your mark on your own terms. In Canada, unregistered trade marks may still benefit from certain rights (known as “common law” rights), although these are geographically limited to where goodwill is established and can be more challenging to enforce.

But what happens in a situation like this, where someone else gets there first?

One option is to overcome the trademark office’s refusal by demonstrating that the marks are not actually confusing. Another is to challenge the registration itself by arguing, for example, that the mark lacks distinctiveness, was filed in bad faith, or has not been used within the last three years.

A third approach is to acquire the rights to the mark from the first registrant and license them back to them. Finally, some decide to move forward by avoiding the legal hurdles, such as by adopting a new name altogether. The best option will depend on a range of factors, including the strength of your position, the strength of the existing registration, and your ultimate business objectives. 

Six factors, one big question: Is it confusing?

Wade’s case hinges on a deceptively simple question: would a casual consumer somewhat in a hurry confuse these two marks? An assessment of confusion turns on six factors, with the degree of resemblance likely having the greatest effect on the analysis. Other factors include the distinctiveness of the marks and the extent to which they have become known; the length of time in use; the nature of the goods, services, or business; the nature of the trade; and other surrounding circumstances.

The degree of resemblance should always be assessed holistically, avoiding a “side by side” approach which focuses on differences. Here, both marks include a dominant word, “Showgirl,” which evokes the image of a glamourous female performer associated with theatrical or cabaret-style shows.

Even if “Confessions” and “Life” are characterized as the dominant elements, while they differ on their face, they tell a remarkably similar story in context. Both suggest a candid, behind-the-scenes glimpse into a showgirl’s world and the complexities beneath the spotlight. To a consumer moving quickly, those differences may arguably blur.

Wade has been using her trademark since 2014, about a decade longer than Swift when the latter flooded the scene in 2025. Almost overnight, Swift’s record-breaking launch of “The Life of a Showgirl” album exposed millions of consumers to the “Showgirl” branding, arguably drowning out Wade’s longstanding use. Wade’s lawsuit notes this; online searches for Wade’s “Showgirl” mark are now overwhelmed by Swift’s content.

In some cases, as in this one, there is evidence of actual consumer confusion which, while not determinative of the likelihood of confusion, is a persuasive surrounding circumstance. Wade alleges multiple documented instances across public platforms where consumers confuse the “Showgirl” marks, such as by using Wade’s mark when discussing Swift’s products, or referring to Swift’s album using Wade’s “Confessions of a Showgirl” trademark.

Key takeaways for Canadian businesses and creators

The Wade-Swift trademark tiff underscores two important lessons.

First, due diligence matters. Before launching a company name, album, product, or brand, businesses of any size should be proactive in their branding strategy. For Swift, this should have included running a proper trademark search to avoid encroaching on another’s registration and the possibility of costly litigation. 

Second, a registration garners many benefits, and it’s important to take advantage of them. When a user enters the market with a confusingly similar trademark to your registration, being proactive with enforcement is important to avoid diluting the market and making your mark non-distinctive. For Wade, this means timely enforcement when Swift entered the marketplace with her similar mark.

Whether you are seeking to run a trademark search or enforce your trademark, or have any other trademark needs, we can assist. Please feel free to contact one of the authors or a member of our Entertainment & Sports Law team if you have any questions.