News December 23, 2025
Judge Rules in Favor of Lady Gaga Over ‘Mayhem’ Trademark Dispute
Surf brand Lost International claimed the singer’s use of the word for merchandise infringed on a decade-old trademark.
Key Takeaways
• A federal judge ruled that Lady Gaga’s use of “Mayhem” did not infringe on surf brand Lost International’s trademark.
• The judge’s ruling stated the use was artistically relevant to her album and did not mislead consumers into thinking Lost International endorsed it, meaning the Lanham Act did not apply and the trademark infringement claim failed at this stage.
• The case highlights how easily trademark conflicts can arise in branded merchandise and promotional products, reinforcing the need for brands, artists and distributors to carefully vet slogans and names before use.
The “mayhem” over Lady Gaga’s legal battle with surf company Lost International appears to be over.
In March, the California-based surf and surfwear brand filed a lawsuit against Lady Gaga, who at the time was marketing her new album MAYHEM with branded merchandise. The suit sought $100 million in damages and requested that a federal judge in California permanently prevent Gaga from using the logo, which Lost International claims infringed on its own “Mayhem” logo that it’s used since 1988 in surf videos and on surfboards, surf equipment, clothing and accessories.
Last week the judge presiding over the case, U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin, denied Lost International’s request, saying that the Lanham Act does not apply to Lady Gaga’s use of the “Mayhem” imagery, according to Law Commentary.
At Lost, “Mayhem” refers to the nickname of one of the company’s co-founders, Matt Biolos, and the company claims to have a trademark for “Mayhem” dating back to 2015. The judge ruled that because the mark and imagery is directly tied to a creative work and doesn’t suggest any endorsement from Lost International, the trademark claims are not valid.
“Because defendant’s use of the mark is artistically relevant and does not explicitly mislead consumers as to the source or content of the challenged work, the Lanham Act does not apply,” Olguin wrote in the verdict.
Law Commentary reported that while Lost International acknowledged the decision of the court, it wouldn’t give up on the case just yet.
“While we would have preferred a different outcome at this preliminary stage, we respect the court’s reasoning and look forward to continuing this process,” the company’s attorneys said.
Trademark cases like this one can offer some interesting insights for companies that operate in the branded-merchandise space. It’s feasible that a customer might come to a distributor with an idea for a promo product or signage campaign using a slogan or word that, unbeknownst to them, is trademarked by someone else.
Other recent cases include the battle between Penn State University and the print-on-demand company Vintage Brand, YETI and the Utah NHL franchise, and NBA star Victor Wembanyama and a merchandise seller trying to use his nickname for personal gain.