Taylor Swift’s lawyers call ‘Life Of A Showgirl’ suit “meritless” at trial

Taylor Swift ’s lawyers have called Maren Wade’s trademark infringement lawsuit against the singer’s ‘The Life Of A Showgirl’ album “nonsensical”.

READ MORE: Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour comes to an end: a look at its massive global impact The popstar was sued last March by Wade , a former Las Vegas showgirl, for allegedly disregarding Wade’s claim to a similar name.

Wade writes a Las Vegas Weekly column called Confessions Of A Showgirl about her experiences as a performer in the entertainment industry; it has since become a podcast and a live show.

The original suit accused Swift of using her album title on merchandise and consumer goods, “all directed at the same audience Plaintiff had spent years cultivating”.

It adds that Swift’s initial application to register ‘The Life Of A Showgirl’ was denied by the US Patent and Trademark Office declined over its confusion to Wade’s column.

Wade seeks unspecified damages and a court order barring the singer from continuing to use the name of her chart-topping album.

At first, Swift’s legal team said that Wade’s request infringes on the First Amendment , adding that it was “undisputed” that the album is “a classic expressive work” and thus entitled to legal protections.

Now, Swift is looking to to toss the case entirely, with her team calling the case “nonsensical”.

“Plaintiff’s overarching assertion that consumers are – or could be – confused into believing that Ms.

Swift, a 14-time Grammy Award winner and global musical icon, is the source of or is associated with plaintiff’s podcast, book, or live cabaret performances at golf resorts and RV parks is nonsensical,” Swift’s lawyers wrote (as per Rolling Stone ).

Taylor Swift’s ‘Life of a Showgirl’ Trademark Fight Escalates as Lawyers Call Lawsuit ‘Nonsensical’ https://t.co/90DKB3GMZk — Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) September 23, 2026 They added that the confusion between Swift’s album and Maren’s brand were “unlikely”, suggesting that the court “should” dismiss the case.

Swift’s lawyers continued to say Wade had failed to “identify a single case where trademark infringement served as the basis of an unfair UCL claim,” instead claiming that her lawsuit was more relevant to false advertising.

As Swift is a Tennessee resident, they also that the Los Angeles federal court had no personal jurisdiction over the popstar.

“Plaintiff’s claims were – and are still – baseless,” they concluded.