Curtains, cushions, candles and clocks. For fans of Taylor Swift who also enjoy buying the homeware listed in the previous sentence, they probably couldn’t believe their luck when the trade mark Swift Home was filed for, branding soft furnishings and more for the discerning ‘Swiftie’. Aviation nuts calculated that Swift’s Dassault Falcon 7X private jet quaffed its way through 80,000 gallons of fuel during her recent Eras tour[1] and that comes at a price[2], however her fans appear more than happy to pitch in and buy Swift-themed merchandise to help fund such habits.
So, when it came to light that Swift would receive no commission from the homeware brand, and that it is actually owned by the unrelated mid-size company Cathay Home, nothing short of hell was due to be paid. As what I have just described is the basis of a real-life trade mark dispute.
‘Consumer confusion’ is a cornerstone of trademark law, both in the UK, SU and elsewhere internationally. So while Cathay Home may have filed for the trade mark (USPTO no. 99170193) with seemingly honest intentions concerning a new ornithological blanket range, Swift’s legal representatives, TAS Rights management LLC, thought the two logos were birds-of-a-feather enough to falsely suggest a connection between Swift and the homeware brand[3] (Section 2(a) of the US Trademark Act).
Photo: Screenshot from U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The above images capture a side-by-side comparison of the trade mark dispute in question. Notice any similarities? Just a few – and while Cathay Home have dropped the ‘Taylor’ at the start, dolloping a ‘Home’ underneath and tailing off the ‘t’ at the end of the logo in a much more avian style, Swift’s team filed further grounds for opposition that there was a realistic likelihood of confusion between the two logos (Section 2(d) of the US Trademark Act). As a result of the opposition, Cathay Home’s Lawyer, Ting Geng from Geng & Associates, released a statement that the trademark application has since been dropped[4].
This is not the first time that Swift’s team have entered trade mark disputes – in 2015, several small Etsy sellers were contacted to remove all products that contained phrasing that could be likened to Swift’s brand[5]. This is a type of trade mark known as a word mark, which, as the name may suggest, protects the words themselves. Swift’s team applied for a series of phrases from her hit album 1989 to be registered as trade marks[6]:
- ‘Cause We Never Go Out of Style’
- ‘This Sick Beat’
- ‘Fearless’
- ‘Taylor Swift’
- ‘Taylor Swift Fearless’
- ‘Party Like It’s 1989’
- ‘Love, Love, Love’
While Swift herself couldn’t possibly give an accurate account on ‘partying in 1989’ – due to being an infant at the time, her legal team put in an application for such trade marks to protect select classes of goods and services from infringement which, even without grant, served as a deterrent. The message was clear: be you meek or be you mighty – if you make a product that bares resemblance to Taylor Swift’s image or brand without her consent, expect a genuine legal smackdown.
For more information on whether your iconic brand may infringe prior rights, do please contact us!
[1] Where Has Taylor Swift Flown In 2024?
[4] ‘Swift Home’: Bedding firm abandons trademark bid after Taylor Swift appeal – BBC News
[5] Taylor Swift vs. Etsy Vendors: Singer Trademarks Song Phrases – Law Street
[6] Swift, Taylor Trademarks Page 1 :: Justia Trademarks
Scintilla is Where Innovation Thrives
We put you in control of your destiny by organising, optimising, & monetising your intellectual property.