Taylor Swift‘s legal team has filed a second motion to dismiss the trademark infringement lawsuit brought by Las Vegas performer Maren Flagg over the branding of The Life of a Showgirl.
The motion, filed on Tuesday (June 30) in the US District Court for the Central District of California, targets the First Amended Complaint that Flagg filed on June 16.
It was filed on behalf of all four defendants – Swift, TAS Rights Management (TASRM), UMG Recordings and UMG‘s merchandise arm Bravado International Group Merchandising Services – by attorneys at Venable LLP.
A hearing on the motion is scheduled for October 7. You can read the filing in full here.
The defendants first moved to dismiss the case in May, arguing that Flagg‘s original complaint failed to state a viable claim and lumped the defendants together more than 90 times.
Flagg responded by filing an amended complaint that restructured her case, assigned each defendant a separate role and added allegations that each directed its conduct at California.
In the new motion, Swift‘s lawyers argue that the amended complaint “fares no better” than the original.
“By filing the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff concedes that her original claims were deficient – and her second attempt fares no better,” the filing states.
“This lawsuit is merely Plaintiff‘s latest attempt to generate publicity by associating herself with Ms. Swift.”
The motion deploys a First Amendment defense as its threshold argument, invoking the Rogers v. Grimaldi test – a legal doctrine that shields expressive works from trademark claims unless the challenged title has no artistic relevance to the underlying work, or explicitly misleads consumers as to its source.
The defendants’ earlier opposition to Flagg‘s preliminary injunction request had raised the same Rogers argument.
“Plaintiff does not – and cannot – allege that the Album title lacks artistic relevance to the underlying work,” the filing states.
“Nor does she plausibly allege the title explicitly misleads (or misleads at all) as to source,” the Venable filing adds.
The motion cites a December 2025 ruling in Lost International, LLC v. Germanotta, in which a judge in the same district denied an injunction sought against Lady Gaga over her use of “Mayhem” as an album title and on related merchandise.
That ruling found that an album title and its associated promotional goods are expressive works protected by Rogers.
The motion also cites a March 2026 ruling in Pepperdine University v. Netflix, Inc., in which the same court dismissed Lanham Act and related state-law claims on the same grounds.
On the question of likelihood of confusion, the defendants argue that Flagg‘s cabaret show, book, podcast and video content bear no resemblance to a musical album and its promotional merchandise.
“Plaintiff is a ‘comedian’ and cabaret performer that has never released any music,” the filing states.
“In contrast, Ms. Swift has never offered a cabaret show (comedic or otherwise), or any live performance in connection with the Album.”
The motion is accompanied by several declarations that, according to the filing, contradict specific factual claims in Flagg‘s amended complaint.
Those declarations state that Swift “does not own, operate, or control an office in California” and that her business is based in Tennessee.
They also state that all of TASRM‘s work, including IP ownership, licensing and commercialization, is directed from Tennessee, and that all of Swift‘s promotional appearances for the album occurred outside of California.
Flagg‘s allegation that Swift “shot photography” of The Life of a Showgirl merchandise in California is “false,” according to the filing.
Decisions concerning the album were made at Republic Records in New York – not California – the motion states, despite UMG‘s headquarters being located in the state.
The filing argues that Flagg‘s California Unfair Competition Law claim fails on two separate grounds: that the UCL does not apply extraterritorially to a Nevada resident alleging no California-based injury, and that trademark infringement does not constitute anti-competitive conduct under the statute.
On personal jurisdiction, the motion argues that the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over Swift or TASRM because neither is domiciled in California, and Flagg has not alleged forum-directed conduct giving rise to her claims.
“Property ownership does not equate to domicile,” the Venable LLP filing states.
The defendants seek dismissal with prejudice, meaning Flagg would not be permitted to amend her complaint a second time.
“Having already amended once, and still failing to state a viable claim, Plaintiff‘s lawsuit should be dismissed with prejudice,” the motion concludes.
Flagg first sued Swift in March, alleging that the branding of Swift‘s twelfth studio album threatened to “drown out” her Confessions of a Showgirl trademark, which she registered in 2015.
The Life of a Showgirl was released in October 2025 and sold more than 4 million equivalent album units in its first week in the US.Music Business Worldwide
