Lady Gaga’s “Mayhem” lawsuit: a warning on album title trademarking

A recent lawsuit against international superstar Lady Gaga serves as a critical lesson for trademark lawyers: it’s imperative to stress to music clients the importance of conducting a comprehensive trademark clearance search before choosing album names, especially when the sale of merchandise is involved.

The “Mayhem” dispute: background

On March 7, 2025, Lady Gaga (whose legal name is Stefani Germanotta) released her latest studio album, “Mayhem.” On March 26, this was swiftly followed by the announcement of a worldwide tour called “The Mayhem Ball” (as reported by Variety). To promote the album and tour, Lady Gaga allegedly sold apparel and merchandise featuring the stylized word MAYHEM on her website. The term MAYHEM currently appears prominently on a dedicated shopping page for merchandise.

Lost International, LLC (“Lost”) has operated the surf and lifestyle brand MAYHEM since the 1980s. They hold a US federal registration (Reg. No. 4790623), which was obtained in August 2015, for MAYHEM in International Class 25 (clothing). The first use in commerce date is January 15, 1992 (TSDR).

Lost International, LLC v. Germanotta: the claims

Lost filed its initial complaint against Lady Gaga in the Central District of California on March 25, 2025. It asserted various federal claims including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and false advertising, along with common law infringement. An amended complaint on April 25, 2025, narrowed the focus to federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and common law infringement. The case is docketed as Lost International, LLC v. Germanotta, 8:25-cv-00592 (C.D. Cal.).

Lost alleges Lady Gaga has “misappropriated the MAYHEM name, trademark, and stylized mark” through her album, tour, and related merchandise, implying consumer confusion or an unauthorized association.

Key issues and potential defenses

While Lost’s claims appear direct, several issues could hinder their success on the merits and offer valuable insights for practitioners:

1. Ornamental vs. trademark use and the Rogers Doctrine

Lost’s complaint highlights merchandise, including a hoodie displaying the term MAYHEM. While merely placing words on clothing can sometimes be deemed ornamental use (decoration, not source identification) by the USPTO (see TMEP Section 1202.03(a)), Lady Gaga’s use goes further. The prominent placement of MAYHEM on her website’s shopping page alongside other merchandise suggests the term functions as a source identifier for tour-related goods. This could shift the use from being purely ornamental to potential trademark use.

Crucially, Lady Gaga will likely invoke the First Amendment and the Rogers v. Grimaldi doctrine. This defense protects the use of trademarks in artistic works unless the use has “no artistic relevance whatsoever to the underlying work” or “explicitly misleads as to the source or content of the work.” While “Mayhem” as an album title is artistically relevant, the challenge for Lost will be to argue that the merchandise explicitly misleads consumers about the origin of the goods or suggests an endorsement by Lost.

2. Inconsistent enforcement and mark strength

Lost’s enforcement history presents another hurdle. In 2013, Lost faced a Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal from the USPTO for its initial MAYHEM application in Class 25, citing multiple prior registrations and applications that contained the term. While Lost pursued one opposition, two of the cited registrations remain live, with the common owner of these registrations reportedly using MAYHEM for clothing since 2011—long after Lost’s first use. Furthermore, Lost subsequently abandoned this initial application and eventually secured registration via a subsequent application.

If Lost knew of these uses and failed to act, it raises equitable defenses like laches or acquiescence. More significantly, consistent third-party use, particularly within the same class, can weaken the strength of Lost’s MAYHEM mark. This may make it harder to prove a likelihood of confusion with Lady Gaga’s use. Lady Gaga’s legal team will undoubtedly leverage this enforcement history to argue that consumers are already accustomed to multiple MAYHEM brands in the clothing market.

The indispensable trademark clearance search

Despite these potential issues and defenses, this lawsuit serves as a stark reminder for trademark lawyers representing musicians: if a client plans to promote an album, launch a tour, and sell merchandise in association with that title, a comprehensive trademark clearance search is not optional—it’s essential. The costs of defending against litigation, regardless of the outcome, far outweigh the expense of proactive due diligence. This case highlights how critical it is to identify potential conflicts early to prevent costly and public disputes.

← Back to News