As the dust settles on the High Court’s recent decision that Australian fashion designer Katie Perry’s eponymous fashion label prevailed over American pop star Katy Perry’s trade mark rights and was not likely to cause confusion among consumers, at least three more well-recognised celebrities and brands find themselves in similar legal battles.
This Insight will provide a background of these cases and how, if at all, they would play out differently under Australian law.
I’m the Problem, It’s Me
Las Vegas performer Marren Flagg has commenced proceedings against Taylor Swift claiming that the title of Swift’s 2025 album, The Life of a Showgirl, infringes Flagg’s Confessions of a Showgirl trade mark.
Flagg’s trade mark, which is the title of her long-running Las Vegas column which was later expanded to a live show and touring production, was registered in 2015. She claims that ‘the dominant shared language in both marks creates an immediate similarity in the minds of consumers’ and that they operate in overlapping markets.
Swift’s application to register The Life of a Showgirl was refused, and Flagg claims that Swift has continued to use the mark on merchandise and other commercial products, resulting in Flagg’s brand being diluted and compromising her ability to be recognised as the originator of Confessions of a Showgirl.
Will the Real Slim … or Swim … Shady Please Stand Up?
American rapper Eminem, commonly referred to as Slim Shady, is in the midst of legal proceedings against Australian beachwear brand Swim Shady. The dispute, which is ongoing in several jurisdictions, is based on Eminem’s claim that the Swim Shady mark is “highly confusingly similar and/or legally identical in sight and sound” to his Slim Shady nickname.
To date, the Swim Shady trade mark has been registered in the United States and Japan (though Eminem has challenged the registration in each country) and opposition proceedings are ongoing in Australia and the UK.
Falling Out of Vogue
Condé Nast, publisher of Vogue magazine, has commenced proceedings against Dogue, a magazine specialising in canine fashion, claiming that Dogue has infringed Vogue’s trade mark. Vogue claims that the dog magazine was “obviously intended” to confuse readers by suggesting that there was a relationship between the two publications. As a result, they claim that Dogue’s conduct was “likely to damage Condé Nast irreparably”.
The Dogue trade mark was filed in the United States in 2022 and was approved in 2025. The magazine is reportedly only sold at one newsstand in California and is available online, selling approximately 100 copies per issue. Dogue claims that it “has always been clearly branded, independently authored and distinct in both concept and execution”.
Implications … and Karma
While only the Swim Shady dispute has an element taking place in Australian courts, similar infringement and opposition actions to the above could be taken under Australia’s trade mark regime.
In addition to opposition or infringement proceedings, Australian trade mark owners in similar circumstances may pursue causes of action under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and/or the tort of passing off, for instance, for engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct or making false or misleading representations. It is prohibited under the ACL to make false or misleading representations that a person or goods or services have sponsorship, approval or affiliation – such as by or with a celebrity.
While celebrity lawsuits are not a new phenomenon, their uptick in recent years is notable, particularly in the age of artificial intelligence. In fact, celebrities have already taken steps to protect their intellectual property in an effort to curb their use in AI fakes. Matthew McConaughey, for example, recently trade marked the phrase ‘Alright, Alright, Alright’ – his catchphrase from the film Dazed and Confused – on that basis.
Nonetheless, at their most basic level, these lawsuits demonstrate the utility, and necessity, in conducting comprehensive trade mark searches before launching a brand. The consequences of not doing so may be costly – both reputationally and financially. For more information on how you can protect your valuable intellectual property assets, reach out to one of Addisons’ Intellectual Property experts.