Taylor Swift Trademark Suspension Highlights USPTO Suspension Risks and Intellectual Property Law

by Anna D’Agostino and Jenna Leslie

In March 2026, the United States Patent Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a suspension notice for the trademark application for “The Life of a Showgirl” filed by Taylor Swift’s company, TAS Rights Management, LLC.  The decision was based on a preexisting trademark registration and a pending trademark application with similar names.

The USPTO specifically cited “Confessions of a Showgirl,” a trademark owned by performer and America’s Got Talent participant Marin Wade for her cabaret show and book about her life in the modern-day entertainment industry.  The USPTO noted that both Wade’s existing and Swift’s requested trademarks include the phrase “of a Showgirl,” which it deemed too similar and likely to cause confusion, especially since both are in the entertainment industry.

Additionally, the USPTO referenced a pending trademark application for the “Showgirl” fragrance submitted by Harlem Brands Inc., a candle company.  “The Life of a Showgirl” application noted that Swift planned on making a branded set of candles under her trademark, which the USPTO again believed would cause confusion.

Taylor Swift’s Next Steps

The USPTO’s suspension of Swift’s “The Life of a Showgirl” trademark application is a delay in the process but not necessarily an outright rejection.  The USPTO generally reviews suspended applications every six months to determine whether the reason for the suspension has been resolved.  Swift’s application will remain suspended until the Harlem Brands “Showgirl” application is registered or abandoned.  Swift has the option of filing a response to the USPTO suspension notice, but doing so is no guarantee that the suspension will be lifted.  However, if the “Showgirl” fragrance trademark is abandoned, Swift may respond to the USPTO and show that her claim to sell candles under the “The Life of a Showgirl” trademark should be protected.

Establishing sufficient differences between Swift’s “The Life of a Showgirl” and Wade’s “Confessions of a Showgirl” might prove more challenging, however.  While Swift’s album broke records when it sold 4 million copies in the first week alone, Wade’s show has the upper hand in terms of seniority.  Wade’s “Confessions of a Showgirl,” which she uses for a cabaret show, website, and book has been a registered trademark since 2015, approximately a decade before Swift filed her application.  This is a significant legal advantage for Wade in the trademark battle.

Evaluating the Likelihood of Confusion

When evaluating whether a trademark is likely to cause confusion to consumers, the USPTO looks to thirteen factors, known as the DuPont Test.  No single factor necessarily dominates the USPTO’s inquiry, and the USPTO may give certain factors greater significance according to the facts of a particular case.  The 13 DuPont factors are:

1. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
2. The similarity or dissimilarity of and nature of the goods or services as described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use.
3. The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels.
4. The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e. “impulse” vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.
5. The fame of the prior mark (sales, advertising, length of use).
6. The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.
7. The nature and extent of any actual confusion.
8. The length of time during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.
9. The variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used (house mark, “family” mark, product mark).
10. The market interface between applicant and the owner of a prior mark:
    • a mere “consent” to register or use.
    • agreement provisions designed to preclude confusion, i.e. limitations on continued use of the marks by each party.
    • assignment of mark, application, registration and good will of the related business.
    • laches and estoppel attributable to owner of prior mark and indicative of lack of confusion.
11. The extent to which applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its mark on its goods.
12. The extent of potential confusion, i.e., whether de minimis or substantial.
13. Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.

Resolving a Likelihood of Confusion Suspension

Although they can be frustrating, likelihood of confusion suspensions  are quite common for trademark applicants.  Only about 43% of all trademark applications receive an approval without any refusals, and likelihood of confusion suspensions are one of the more common actions taken by USPTO to ensure consumers are not misled about similar goods or services.

To resolve likelihood of confusion suspensions, applicants may get in touch with the owner of the existing trademark to try and come to an agreement to coexist.  If such cooperative efforts are unsuccessful, the applicant would have to argue for the USPTO to lift the suspension or continue through the appeals process.

Applications facing a suspension for likelihood of confusion have better success on their first argument than in the appeals process later on.  About 90% of likelihood of confusion refusals were affirmed by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in 2025.  First arguments fare slightly better, with about a 60 – 70% chance of succeeding in lifting a hold.

Avoiding Likelihood of Confusion Suspensions: The Benefits of a Comprehensive Trademark Search

Given that trademark suspensions can be difficult to overcome, the best strategy is often to prevent them in the first place.  Applicants can run a comprehensive trademark search to identify potential conflicts with registered trademarks in the field.  This crucial step can reveal whether a proposed trademark will infringe upon an existing trademark, saving applicants from time-consuming redesigns, pauses in production, and even costly lawsuits.  Applicants who forego this step risk USPTO suspension or even flat-out rejection.

Branding is not legally protected until it is finally registered.  Thus, even if a trademark is only suspended temporarily, other goods and services similar to the brand cannot be held accountable for mimicking it during this time.  Suspensions usually last six months or longer, which can have long-term impacts on the financial and commercial success of a brand.  Conducting a comprehensive trademark search is one of the most effective ways to protect a brand.

Miller Shah LLP advises businesses and individuals on trademark registration, intellectual property strategy, and related commercial matters. If you have questions about trademark applications, USPTO proceedings, trademark suspensions, or protecting your brand, the attorneys at Miller Shah LLP may be able to help.