Recent trademark suits involving widely recognized figures highlight that even highly sophisticated brand owners may encounter significant trademark exposure when launching new names, products, or ventures without comprehensive clearance and a disciplined prosecution strategy at the USPTO. 

Two recent federal cases — one involving a global recording artist, another involving professional athletes — demonstrate how quickly brand disputes can arise, how USPTO proceedings may become relevant in litigation, and how marketplace prominence does not insulate parties from claims under the Lanham Act. 

The "Showgirl" trademark dispute: When an office action becomes evidence 

In March 2026, Las Vegas performer Maren Flagg, known professionally as Maren Wade, filed suit in the Central District of California against Taylor Swift and affiliated entities. Flagg claims that Taylor's use of “The Life Of A Showgirl” as a trademark on merchandise infringes Flagg’s long‑standing “Confessions of a Showgirl” mark, alleging: 

• Maren has used “Confessions of a Showgirl” since 2014 in connection with live performances, media, and digital content and holds a federal registration for the mark. 

• Taylor sought to register “The Life of a Showgirl” as a trademark for merchandise. During prosecution, the USPTO issued a Non‑Final Office Action refusing registration in part based on a likelihood of confusion with existing marks, including “Confessions of a Showgirl.” 

• Before the issues in the Office Action were resolved, Taylor's team requested suspension of the application pending registration of an unrelated mark; the application remains active and Taylor continued to use “The Life Of A Showgirl” on an album and associated merchandise. 

The complaint references the USPTO’s refusal and the citation to Maren's trademark registration as evidence that Taylor had notice of a potential conflict.  

The “1587” restaurant/sneaker dispute: Numeric marks in conflict

In February 2026, sneaker and apparel company 1587 Sneakers, Inc. filed suit in the Southern District of New York against Travis Kelce (Taylor Swift's fiancé), Patrick Mahomes, and several affiliated entities, claiming that their “1587 Prime” steakhouse brand infringes 1587 Sneakers, Inc.'s prior “1587” trademark and alleging:

• The sneaker company has used “1587” as a brand for footwear and apparel since April 2023 and owns a prior trademark for that mark. 

• The company’s “1587” products have received national media exposure, including coverage in The Boston Globe, Teen Vogue, and on Shark Tank.

• The football players and company operate a steakhouse under the name “1587 Prime.” The “1587” numeral is derived from a combination of the two athlete's jersey numbers (15 and 87). 

The dispute highlights a recurrent issue: numeric marks that may appear personal or arbitrary to one party can arguably overlap with an existing brand that has established recognition in another sector. The fact that “1587” reflects jersey numbers does not, by itself, eliminate the risk that consumers might think there is some affiliation or sponsorship between the companies, particularly when both parties operate in consumer‑facing lifestyle sectors. 

A prior trademark dispute: Short‑lived, but not cost‑free

The latest showgirl‑themed dispute is not the first time Taylor Swift has been subject to trademark claims. In 2021, Utah-based Evermore Park, LLC brought suit against her over alleged infringement of its federally registered “Evermore” marks in connection with the release of the “Evermore” album and related merchandise. That earlier case was voluntarily dismissed within weeks, but not before generating substantial public attention and legal expense, demonstrating that even quickly resolved matters can result in financial and reputational costs.

Key Takeaways for Brand Owners 

These cases offer several practical lessons for companies and individuals launching new brands, whether in entertainment, sports, hospitality, fashion, or beyond:

• Comprehensive clearance searches are essential before launch. Both pending suits center on allegations that the defendants adopted marks that are confusingly similar to existing registered or common law trademarks. Identifying conflicts early allows brand owners to pivot before investing in packaging, promotion, and public goodwill around a mark that may later become the focus of litigation. 

• Even popular brands face exposure. A common misconception is that a celebrity’s or major brand’s marketplace prominence insulates them from infringement exposure. Under the Lanham Act, the party with the strongest claim to a trademark is usually the earliest user, which may not necessarily be the most well-known one. 

That means:

• The strength or fame of a name or persona does not necessarily negate risk. 

• “Personal meaning” behind a mark (such as jersey numbers) does not override prior third‑party rights. 

• Courts will focus on how consumers perceive the mark in context, not any subjective intent in selecting them. 

• Even short‑lived disputes are costly; proactive strategy is cheaper than reactive defense.

  • Litigation forces rapid, high‑stakes decisions about continued use, rebranding, settlement, and public messaging. 

  • Contentious disputes can draw substantial media attention, especially when high‑profile names are involved. 

  • Retroactive fixes, such as rebranding, inventory write‑offs, and revised marketing campaigns, are almost always more expensive than front‑end clearance and risk assessment, especially when you favor in loss of reputation and goodwill. 

Bottom Line

Even the most sophisticated and visible commercial actors are not immune from trademark infringement claims. Pre‑launch diligence and clear-eyed assessment of marketplace risk are critical for any new brand, product line, or venture. Investing in proactive clearance and strategy is far less costly than defending a lawsuit after the fact, no matter how famous the name on the door.