‘Mayhem’ in the Marketplace: Judge Denies Injunction in Lady Gaga Trademark Dispute

The court found that the brand had not shown that it was likely to succeed on its trademark infringement claims against the musician, reinforcing an important First Amendment protection for expressive works that use others’ trademarks.

Background

To promote her seventh studio album titled Mayhem, Lady Gaga began offering merchandise emblazoned with the word “MAYHEM” in January 2025. Following the album’s release, Lost International, LLC, a California-based surf apparel and streetwear brand, launched a trademark infringement lawsuit against the pop star just before the announcement of The Mayhem Ball concert tour.

Lost, which has sold surf equipment and apparel under its stylized “Mayhem” mark since the 1980s, holds a federal trademark registration for the mark’s use on clothing, secured in 2015. Lost alleged that Gaga’s clothing and headwear merchandise used a “nearly identical design,” which would mislead consumers into associating the surf brand with the musician. The company argued that this consumer confusion would damage the goodwill it had built over nearly four decades and “reputation in its target core surf community that is grounded in standing apart from the mainstream.” Lost sued the pop star after a cease-and-desist letter failed to resolve the dispute.

Shortly after commencing the lawsuit, Lost asked the court for a preliminary injunction to prevent Gaga from marketing and selling the merchandise while the case proceeded. To win this early request, Lost had to convince the court, among other things, that it was likely to ultimately succeed on its trademark infringement claims under the Lanham Act.

The Test for Expressive Works

Before assessing Lost’s claims, the court first determined whether the Lanham Act applied. Typically, using another company’s trademark on one’s products is a clear-cut case of infringement. However, the First Amendment’s protection of free speech accords different treatment to expressive works like music, books, and films, where the use of a mark is less likely to be mistaken for a sign of association or endorsement by the mark owner. To balance trademark rights with free speech, courts apply the two-part test known as the Rogers test. This test permits use of a trademark in an expressive work if the use (1) is artistically relevant to the underlying work and (2) does not explicitly mislead consumers as the source or content of the work.[1]

Lost argued that this First Amendment protection should not apply. Unlike the Mayhem album itself, Lost contended that the clothing and headwear bearing the album title were not expressive works. The brand further claimed that Gaga’s use of “MAYHEM” on merchandise would explicitly mislead consumers into believing that Lost’s mark was associated with her and her nationwide concert.

The Court’s Key Ruling

On December 15, 2025, the court sided with Gaga and denied the injunction, finding that the use of “MAYHEM” on merchandise was protected as an expressive work under the Rogers test. For the first prong, the court agreed that the use was artistically relevant (a low bar), especially since the merchandise promoted an expressive work, her album. The Ninth Circuit has held that promotional efforts connected to an expressive work are protected under Rogers.[2] For the second prong, the court found that Lost failed to show that Gaga’s use of the mark was explicitly misleading consumers because its only supporting evidence was her use of the mark, which was insufficient under court precedent.

While the court’s denial of injunctive relief is not a final ruling, it suggests that the court may be skeptical of the trademark infringement claims moving forward. Counsel for Gaga applauded the ruling, stating that “[i]t reaffirms that trademark law cannot be used to censor expressive works or chill artistic expression.” On the other hand, Lost’s counsel indicated that it would continue fighting while remaining open to a constructive dialogue that strikes a balance between artistic expression and protecting consumers from confusion.

Practical Takeaways

This ruling is a reminder for brand owners that enforcing a trademark against merchandise tied to an expressive work, such as a music album, is an uphill battle. If the use of the mark is artistically relevant and not explicitly misleading, the First Amendment provides robust protection. To succeed in such a case, a brand must provide strong evidence that the artist explicitly misled consumers, for instance, through an overt claim indicating endorsement. Simply using a similar word or design on merchandise connected to an expressive work is not enough to demonstrate a likelihood of success on a Lanham Act trademark infringement claim and obtain an early injunction.

The case is Lost International, LLC v. Germanotta, 8:25-cv-00592 (C.D. Cal.).

Additional research and writing from Corinne Taranov, a law clerk in ArentFox Schiff’s New York office.