Blab Music
Swim Shady Wins Australian Trademark Ruling Against Eminem
On July 2, 2026, the Australian Intellectual Property Office delivered a decisive verdict that cleared the way for Sydney‑based swimwear label Swim Shady to keep using its name.
An IP Australia delegate narrowed the scope of rapper Eminem’s “Shady” and “Shady Limited” trademarks, finding that the marks had not been actively used in Australia within the clothing and accessory categories that Swim Shady operates. This move reflects IP Australia’s policy that trademarks must be used in commerce to retain protection. In the absence of consistent use, the office considers the marks effectively abandoned for the contested categories.
The decision was based on evidence that the U.S. artist’s trademarks had only three recorded sales of “Shady” merchandise to Australian customers during the relevant period, and that he lacked the level of control required to maintain protection in those classes.
Because of that lack of use, the delegate removed the “Shady” and “Shady Limited” marks from several clothing and accessory classes. The ruling also ordered Eminem to cover the legal costs Swim Shady incurred in the proceedings.
Swim Shady, founded by Jeremy Scott and Elizabeth Afrakoff, had filed its own trademark in 2024. The founders described the ruling as an important milestone, but noted that the dispute is not yet fully resolved.
The brand’s legal team has until July 22 to file an appeal against the Australian ruling.
The case is part of a wider international clash. Eminem has challenged Swim Shady’s trademark in the United States, United Kingdom, and Japan. In the U.S., the brand registered its mark in September 2025, after which Eminem filed for cancellation. Swim Shady paused those U.S. proceedings while the Australian case progressed. The pause allowed Swim Shady to focus resources on the Australian hearing, while the U.S. cancellation petition was temporarily shelved pending the outcome.
Eminem’s “Shady” marks were originally registered in Australia 12 years before Swim Shady launched, and the rapper did not register “Slim Shady” as an Australian trademark until after the brand’s launch. The Australian decision therefore limits the scope of Eminem’s protection to a narrower set of goods, permitting Swim Shady to continue marketing its beachwear without interference. The decision also clarifies that the rapper’s earlier registrations do not cover the new product lines introduced by Swim Shady.
For Swim Shady, the ruling removes a potential source of brand confusion and legal expense. For Eminem, the decision constrains the use of his “Shady” name in Australia, although he may still pursue protection in other jurisdictions.
The outcome underscores the complex interplay between music‑industry branding and intellectual‑property law. It also illustrates how artists’ alter‑ego trademarks can collide with consumer‑facing brands that share similar terminology. The Australian ruling is a key development in a dispute that remains active in multiple countries.
The final status of the case will hinge on whether Eminem appeals. If the appeal is denied, Swim Shady will be able to expand its product line in Australia without further legal challenge from the rapper. If the appeal is successful, the scope of the “Shady” marks could be restored, potentially affecting the brand’s operations.
The dispute joins a growing list of high‑profile trademark battles in the music industry, following similar conflicts involving Katy Perry and Taylor Swift. It highlights the importance of clear trademark strategy for artists and brands alike.
An IP Australia delegate narrowed the scope of rapper Eminem’s “Shady” and “Shady Limited” trademarks, finding that the marks had not been actively used in Australia within the clothing and accessory categories that Swim Shady operates. This move reflects IP Australia’s policy that trademarks must be used in commerce to retain protection. In the absence of consistent use, the office considers the marks effectively abandoned for the contested categories.
The decision was based on evidence that the U.S. artist’s trademarks had only three recorded sales of “Shady” merchandise to Australian customers during the relevant period, and that he lacked the level of control required to maintain protection in those classes.
Because of that lack of use, the delegate removed the “Shady” and “Shady Limited” marks from several clothing and accessory classes. The ruling also ordered Eminem to cover the legal costs Swim Shady incurred in the proceedings.
Swim Shady, founded by Jeremy Scott and Elizabeth Afrakoff, had filed its own trademark in 2024. The founders described the ruling as an important milestone, but noted that the dispute is not yet fully resolved.
The brand’s legal team has until July 22 to file an appeal against the Australian ruling.
The case is part of a wider international clash. Eminem has challenged Swim Shady’s trademark in the United States, United Kingdom, and Japan. In the U.S., the brand registered its mark in September 2025, after which Eminem filed for cancellation. Swim Shady paused those U.S. proceedings while the Australian case progressed. The pause allowed Swim Shady to focus resources on the Australian hearing, while the U.S. cancellation petition was temporarily shelved pending the outcome.
Eminem’s “Shady” marks were originally registered in Australia 12 years before Swim Shady launched, and the rapper did not register “Slim Shady” as an Australian trademark until after the brand’s launch. The Australian decision therefore limits the scope of Eminem’s protection to a narrower set of goods, permitting Swim Shady to continue marketing its beachwear without interference. The decision also clarifies that the rapper’s earlier registrations do not cover the new product lines introduced by Swim Shady.
For Swim Shady, the ruling removes a potential source of brand confusion and legal expense. For Eminem, the decision constrains the use of his “Shady” name in Australia, although he may still pursue protection in other jurisdictions.
The outcome underscores the complex interplay between music‑industry branding and intellectual‑property law. It also illustrates how artists’ alter‑ego trademarks can collide with consumer‑facing brands that share similar terminology. The Australian ruling is a key development in a dispute that remains active in multiple countries.
The final status of the case will hinge on whether Eminem appeals. If the appeal is denied, Swim Shady will be able to expand its product line in Australia without further legal challenge from the rapper. If the appeal is successful, the scope of the “Shady” marks could be restored, potentially affecting the brand’s operations.
The dispute joins a growing list of high‑profile trademark battles in the music industry, following similar conflicts involving Katy Perry and Taylor Swift. It highlights the importance of clear trademark strategy for artists and brands alike.
