On March 7, 2025, Lady Gaga, whose real name is Stefani Germanotta, released her latest studio album titled “Mayhem.” Almost immediately after its release, on March 26, she announced a world tour called “The Mayhem Ball.” As part of the album and tour promotion, the artist began selling clothing and merchandise featuring the distinctive MAYHEM inscription on her official website. This term was prominently displayed on a dedicated online store page, which proved crucial for the subsequent legal developments. However, the problem was that the name MAYHEM had n used for decades by another company in the apparel industry, leading to an inevitable legal conflict.
Lost International LLC, a company operating in the apparel, surfing, and lifestyle industries, has n using the MAYHEM trademark since the 1980s. It holds a federal trademark registration in the United States (registration number 4790623) obtained in August 2015 for International Class 25, which covers clothing. The first commercial use dates back to January 15, 1992. Lost International filed its initial complaint against Lady Gaga in the Central District of California on March 25, 2025, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of origin, and violation of common law. The amended complaint filed on April 25 narrowed the claims to federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and violation of common law. The company claims that Lady Gaga “adopted the name, trademark, and stylized mark MAYHEM” through her album, tour, and related merchandise, suggesting that this would cause consumer confusion.
Despite the seemingly straightforward claims, the Lost International v. Lady Gaga case involves several issues that could hinder the plaintiff’s success. The first significant issue is the distinction between ornamental use and trademark use, as well as the application of the Rogers doctrine. While the mere placement of words on clothing may be considered ornamental use, the placement of the term MAYHEM on Lady Gaga’s online store suggests that it functions as a source identifier.
Lady Gaga will likely invoke the First Amendment and the Rogers v. Grimaldi doctrine, which protects the use of trademarks in artistic works unless they have no artistic relevance or explicitly misrepresent the source of the work. The second significant weakness in Lost International’s case is the inconsistent history of enforcing its trademark rights and the strength of the trademark itself. In 2013, Lost encountered a rejection from the USPTO due to the likelihood of confusion with numerous prior registrations containing the term MAYHEM. The fact that some of these registrations remain active could weaken the strength of Lost’s MAYHEM trademark and make it more difficult to prove a likelihood of confusion with Lady Gaga’s use.
Regardless of the potential issues and defenses in this case, the legal proceedings serve as a stark reminder to trademark attorneys representing musicians about the critical importance of conducting thorough trademark searches. If a client plans to promote an album, embark on a tour, and sell merchandise related to a title, a diligent conflict search is not optional – it is essential. The costs of defending against a lawsuit, regardless of the outcome, far outweigh the expenses associated with proactive legal analysis.
The Lady Gaga case highlights how crucial it is to identify potential conflicts early on to prevent costly and highly publicized disputes. Proper legal analysis during the album title selection process could have completely avoided this situation, saving all parties time, money, and negative media attention.
Fill out the form and we will get back to you within the next … with a preliminary quote.
