Corporate Counsel Daily, Lady Gaga wins dismissal of MAYHEM trademark infringement suit, (Aug 19, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

The court denied the plaintiff, a surfing brand, further leave to amend the complaint, concluding that such action would be futile.

The federal district court in Los Angeles dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Lady Gaga’s use of the word “Mayhem” as an album and tour title, and on promotional clothing, infringed a surfing brand’s standard character mark MAYHEM. The court held that the plaintiff failed the Rogers test, in part by offering merely conclusory allegations in its complaint. The court also denied the plaintiff further leave to amend the complaint, noting that the plaintiff had multiple opportunities to state a viable claim and had been on notice of deficiencies (Lost International, LLC v. Germanotta, No. 8:25-cv-00592-FMO-KES (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2026)).

Background. Lost International, LLC, a surfing lifestyle brand, owns the standard character mark MAYHEM for “Beanies; Caps; Jackets; Pants; Sandals; Shorts; T-shirts; Tank tops” in International Class 25. Lost sells clothing and accessories with the mark, often in stylized form, although the company does not claim that the stylized mark is itself the subject of a registered trademark. On March 7, 2025, Stefani Joanne Germanotta, the famous musician known professionally as Lady Gaga, released a music album entitled “Mayhem” and announced a worldwide tour under the same name. To promote the album and tour, Lady Gaga released Mayhem-themed merchandise, including clothing.

On March 25, 2025, Lost filed suit against Lady Gaga, and soon thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). On May 8, 2025, Lost filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Lady Gaga from using the MAYHEM mark in promotional materials and clothing, arguing that continued use was likely to cause confusion and irreparable harm. The court denied the motion for failure to show a likelihood of success on Lanham Act claims. The court subsequently granted plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

Plaintiff filed the SAC, which the court described as containing allegations virtually identical to those in the FAC: (1) federal trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (2) common law trademark infringement; (3) federal false designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (4) state law unfair business practices in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and (5) common law unfair competition. Lady Gaga filed a motion to dismiss.

Rogers test. When an allegedly infringing use of a mark is an expressive work, the Ninth Circuit applies the two-pronged Rogers test, as articulated in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), to determine whether the Lanham Act applies. The court held that Lost failed the Rogers test.

Under this test, the defendant must first show that its allegedly infringing use is protected by the First Amendment. If this first prong is met, the plaintiff must then show that the defendant’s use of the mark lacks artistic relevance to the work or explicitly misleads consumers about the source of the work or its content. To satisfy the second prong, the plaintiff must show “an explicit indication, overt claim, or explicit misstatement about the source of the work.”

The court found that Lost did not meaningfully dispute that defendants’ use of the mark was “artistically relevant to an expressive work,” and therefore Lost conceded the artistic-relevance prong of the test. As for the second prong, the court found that Lost’s allegations were merely conclusory and not enough to constitute an “explicit indication, overt claim, or explicit misstatement” identifying Lost as the source of Lady Gaga’s work. Thus, the court said, Rogers bars plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims.

In a footnote, the court added that plaintiff’s derivative state statutory and common law claims are also barred, citing defenses under the First Amendment and fair use and aesthetic functionality defenses.

Further leave. The court denied Lost further leave to amend the complaint. Granting leave to amend pleadings is subject to the discretion of the court, but it is guided by several factors. Here, the court noted that Lost had three chances to state viable claims. Lost was on notice of deficiencies in its Lanham Act claims, but it did not put forth sufficient allegations in the SAC to amend those deficiencies. The court wrote that giving Lost another opportunity to amend would be futile.

The Case is No. 8:25-cv-00592-FMO-KES.

Judge: Olguin, F.

Attorneys: Benjamin Lloyd Price (Bremer Whyte Brown and O'Meara LLP) for Lost International, LLC. Howard S. Hogan (Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP) for Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta a/k/a Lady Gaga and Bravado International Group Merchandising Services, Inc.

Companies: Lost International, LLC; Bravado International Group Merchandising Services, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Trademark CaliforniaNews GCNNews