Keep pulling the thread on Terence Ross.
Maren Flagg filed a lawsuit against Taylor Swift, claiming the album title 'The Life of a Showgirl' infringed on her trademark for the phrase 'Confessions of a Showgirl'.
Taylor Swift's defense team argues that the album title 'The Life of a Showgirl' is an expressive work protected by the First Amendment, a defense based on the Rogers Test doctrine.
Terence Ross believes that Taylor Swift will ultimately win the right to use 'The Life of a Showgirl' as her album title because it is protected as an expressive work under the Rogers Test.
Terence Ross predicts the district court judge will likely deny Maren Flagg's motion for a preliminary injunction because she cannot prove a likelihood of success on the merits.
Terence Ross is highly confident that Taylor Swift will not be forced to change her album's name or recall the album, as the Rogers Test still applies to titles of musical works.
Terence Ross believes that merchandise sold by Taylor Swift's entities, such as candles branded with 'Life of a Showgirl', is not expressive conduct and therefore is not protected by the Rogers Test.
Terence Ross suggests that Taylor Swift's decision to apply for a trademark registration for 'Life of a Showgirl' may have been a strategic mistake, as it implies intent to use the phrase as a brand identifier, which is not protected under the revised Rogers Test.
Maren Flagg is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Taylor Swift from using the phrase 'The Life of a Showgirl' while the trademark infringement litigation is ongoing.
In November 2025, the United States Trademark Office issued a non-final office action indicating it would likely deny Taylor Swift's trademark application for 'The Life of a Showgirl' due to potential confusion with existing marks.
The United States Trademark Office suspended Taylor Swift's trademark application for 'The Life of a Showgirl' in March 2026.
Maren Flagg filed her trademark infringement lawsuit against Taylor Swift in the Central District of California.
The Supreme Court's decision in the Jack Daniel's versus VIP Toys case narrowed the interpretation of the Rogers Doctrine, limiting its application primarily to the titles of expressive works.