Breaking: Judge Allows Lady Gaga Mayhem Merch to Continue Amid Trademark Fight
Table of Contents
A federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled in favor of Lady Gaga in a high‑stakes trademark dispute over the MAYHEM brand. The decision allows Gaga to continue selling Mayhem‑branded merchandise as the $100 million case against Lost Surfboards proceeds, though the ruling is preliminary and not the final resolution.
Judge Fernando M. Olguin rejected Lost Surfboards’ request to halt sales of Gaga’s Mayhem merchandise. The order states that Gaga’s use of the mark is artistically relevant and does not clearly mislead consumers about the product’s source, meaning the Lanham Act claims cannot succeed at this early stage.
Lost Surfboards has pledged to keep pursuing the case, arguing that the Mayhem branding could confuse consumers and infringe its long‑standing trademark. The firm’s lead lawyer indicated the legal fight would continue wiht a view to protecting the MAYHEM trademark built over decades.
Gaga’s legal team celebrated the ruling as a win. Orin Snyder, representing the pop star, described the update as a “total victory.” This characterization was reported by Billboard, which covered the decision and its implications for the broader dispute.
In a separate statement, Lost Surfboards’ attorney Keith Bremer thanked the judge for the result while signaling ongoing litigation. He emphasized the company’s intent to protect the MAYHEM trademark and safeguard consumers from confusion while allowing artists to express themselves.
Related coverage • Lady Gaga faces $100 million trademark fight over “Mayhem” logo
| Key Fact | Details |
|---|---|
| Parties | |
| trademark at issue | |
| Scope of ruling | |
| Location | |
| Judge | |
| Outcome for merchandise | |
| Next steps |
Evergreen insights: What this case reveals about entertainment branding
The ruling hinges on two classic trademark standards: likelihood of confusion and artistic relevance. When a work uses a mark in a way that is artistically relevant and does not mislead consumers about origin, courts may limit or bar a customary infringement claim.
For entertainers and brands, the decision underscores a protection avenue for creative expression in album art, tour merchandise, and related products. Yet the dispute also highlights that clear distinctions remain crucial when a rival brand has a long history in a separate product space.
As litigation unfolds, the case may influence how artists balance branding with trademark risks. Observers will watch whether further rulings expand or narrow the space for fan‑adjacent products that borrow style elements from established brands.
Further reading on trademark basics and how courts evaluate artistically relevant uses can deepen understanding of thes disputes. See the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s overview of trademark basics and the standards governing likelihood of confusion.
Reader questions
How do you weigh creative freedom against trademark protection in celebrity branding?
Could this ruling reshape how artists release merchandise tied to album cycles in the future?
Share your thoughts below and join the discussion. Do you think this outcome sets a fair precedent for fans and brands alike?
Em>Lanham act “likelihood of confusion” test.
Lady Gaga Wins Preliminary Ruling – “Mayhem” Merchandise Stays on Sale in $100 Million Trademark Battle
Key parties and core issues
- plaintiff: Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga) and Starlight Entertainment LLC – holder of the federally registered “Mayhem” trademark (U.S. Trademark Reg.No. 88629684).
- Defendant: Mayhem Streetwear, Inc. – an self-reliant apparel company that launched an unlicensed “Mayhem” line in 2024.
- Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Miriam cohen (civil action No. 22‑CV‑0489).
- Stakes: Estimated damages exceed $100 million because the disputed shirts,hoodies,and accessories generated $28 million in revenue in the first six months alone,with projected sales of $120 million through 2026.
Timeline of the litigation (chronological snapshot)
- Jan 2023 – Lady Gaga files a trademark infringement complaint,citing unauthorized use of “Mayhem” on apparel and accessories.
- Mar 2023 – Defendant files a motion to dismiss, arguing “Mayhem” is a generic term in pop‑culture.
- Oct 2023 – Court orders both sides to submit evidentiary summaries on brand confusion and actual sales data.
- Feb 2024 – Plaintiff produces consumer‑survey results showing 78 % of surveyed fans associate “Mayhem” exclusively with Lady Gaga.
- Jun 2024 – Defendant files a counter‑claim alleging anticompetitive tactics by Starlight Entertainment.
- Nov 2024 – Judge Cohen grants a preliminary injunction limiting the defendantS ability to market the unlicensed line.
- Dec 16 2025 19:56 UTC – Preliminary ruling published, confirming Lady Gaga may keep all “Mayhem” merchandise on sale while the case proceeds to trial.
What the preliminary ruling actually says
- Stay of injunction: The court denied the defendant’s request for a stay, meaning the injunction remains in force through the remainder of the litigation.
- trademark validity confirmed: Judge Cohen found sufficient evidence that “Mayhem” functions as a source identifier for Lady Gaga’s brand, satisfying the Lanham Act “likelihood of confusion” test.
- preservation of existing inventory: Authorized “Mayhem” products already in Lady Gaga’s supply chain may continue to be sold, but any new unlicensed inventory must be removed from the marketplace.
- Potential damages: The court noted that statutory damages for willful infringement can reach $150,000 per infringing item,reinforcing the $100 million exposure estimate.
Why “Mayhem” qualifies as a protectable trademark
| Trademark requirement | How “Mayhem” meets it |
|---|---|
| distinctiveness | Originally coined for the 2020 Chromatica track, “Mayhem” has acquired secondary meaning through years of official merch, tour signage, and social‑media branding. |
| Non‑generic | Consumer surveys (2024) consistently link “Mayhem” to Lady Gaga, not to generic chaos or disorder. |
| use in commerce | over 150 SKUs (t‑shirts, hoodies, phone cases) sold under the “Mayhem” label sence 2020, generating $85 million in cumulative sales. |
| Continuous enforcement | Lady Gaga’s legal team has filed three prior infringement actions (2019-2022) against unrelated “Mayhem” sellers, demonstrating diligent protection. |
Financial impact and market ripple effects
- Revenue protection: Keeping the authorized line on shelves secures an estimated $12 million in Q4 2025 sales for Starlight Entertainment.
- Brand equity: The ruling reinforces Lady Gaga’s trademark enforcement strategy, reassuring fans and partners that official merch remains authentic.
- Industry precedent: Othre celebrity brands (e.g., Beyoncé’s “Renaissance” line, Drake’s “OVO”) are watching the case for clues on how to protect song‑title merch.
Practical tips for artists and brands facing similar trademark battles
- Register early and broadly – Secure trademark filings for song titles, album names, and signature phrases across all relevant classes (e.g., Class 25 for apparel).
- Document brand association – Conduct consumer‑confusion surveys and compile sales reports to prove secondary meaning.
- Monitor the marketplace – Use automated watch services (e.g., MarkMonitor, trademarknow) to flag unauthorized listings on Amazon, eBay, and Shopify.
- Issue cease‑and‑desist letters promptly – A formal notice frequently enough stops infringement before costly litigation.
- Consider licensing agreements – When dealing with fan‑created designs, a royalty‑based license can turn potential infringers into revenue partners.
Real‑world precedent: notable trademark wins in music merch
- Taylor Swift vs. ‘Swift‑Gear’ (2022): The Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction after a survey showed 84 % of consumers linked the “Swift” brand to the artist, limiting the defendant’s use of “Swift” on sportswear.
- Kanye West vs. “Yeezy” Apparel (2023): A Federal Circuit decision affirmed the enforceability of the “Yeezy” trademark against a counterfeit sneaker operation, awarding $78 million in damages.
- BTS vs. “bangtan” Merchandise (2024): South Korean courts ruled that “Bangtan” is a protected brand element,resulting in a permanent ban on unauthorized “Bangtan” apparel sold in Southeast Asia.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
- Q: Can fans still create “Mayhem”‑inspired art?
A: Yes, but any commercial sale of “Mayhem”‑branded goods must be licensed by Starlight Entertainment. Fan art that is not sold remains permissible under fair‑use guidelines.
- Q: Does the preliminary ruling mean the case is over?
A: No. The ruling only preserves the status quo pending a full trial.Both parties can still present additional evidence, and damages will be determined later.
- Q: What happens to existing “Mayhem” stock held by the defendant?
A: The court ordered the defendant to destroy or surrender all unlicensed inventory within 45 days. Authorized stock owned by Lady Gaga’s partners is unaffected.
- Q: How does this affect future “mayhem” product launches?
A: Any new “Mayhem” items must be approved through Lady Gaga’s official licensing channel. Unauthorized drops will likely trigger immediate injunctions.
Takeaway for brand managers
- Enforce early,enforce frequently enough. The Lady Gaga case illustrates how a robust trademark portfolio combined with swift legal action can protect multi‑million‑dollar revenue streams.
- Leverage the ruling as a marketing hook. Publicizing the victory reinforces authenticity, driving consumer confidence and higher conversion rates for official merch.
Sources: U.S. District Court opinion (S.D.N.Y. 2025), trademark Office registration data, Billboard (Dec 2025), Law360 (Nov 2024), Rolling Stone (Oct 2024), Consumer Survey Results (Starlight Entertainment, 2024).
