Blab Music
Judge Dismisses Lost Surfboards Trademark Suit Against Lady Gaga
When a surfboard brand and a pop icon collided over a shared word, the courtroom became the ultimate surf spot. On August 18, 2026, Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that Lost Surfboards’ $100 million lawsuit against Lady Gaga was dismissed for lack of merit.
Lost Surfboards, founded by master shaper Matt Biolos, has carried the name “Mayhem” on its boards and apparel for more than a decade. In March 2025 the company filed the suit, alleging that Gaga’s new album Mayhem and the accompanying tour merchandise infringed the brand’s trademark. The filing also sought to block the pop star from selling the merchandise while the case was pending.
The core of Lost’s claim was consumer confusion. Attorneys for the surfboard maker argued that the identical word on Gaga’s clothing would lead the public to associate the brand with the artist, thereby diluting Lost’s distinctiveness. In May 2025 the company sought a preliminary injunction to halt sales of the merchandise, but the court denied that motion.
Judge Olguin’s opinion clarified why the court found the claim insufficient. He wrote that the allegations were “conclusory and insufficient to constitute an explicit indication, overt claim, or explicit misstatement identifying Lost as the source of Lady Gaga’s work.” He added that “the use of a mark alone is not enough … and nothing in the lawsuit suggests or otherwise indicates an affirmative misrepresentation in connection with the source or the content of Lady Gaga’s work.” The judge also noted that the alleged infringement involved an expressive work protected by the First Amendment, making a trademark claim difficult to sustain.
Lost’s attorney, Keith G. Bremer, responded to The Inertia that the ruling was based on a “misapplication of the governing legal standard.” Bremer said the company would appeal, arguing that the court’s analysis was inconsistent with Lost’s trademark rights.
The dismissal leaves Gaga free to continue selling Mayhem‑branded merchandise and to promote her album, which debuted on March 7, 2025. The record and its tour, the Mayhem Ball, have performed strongly in the United States and internationally, topping charts in 22 countries and earning multiple certifications.
While Lost has not yet outlined a specific appellate strategy, the company’s public statements indicate that it will pursue further legal action. The case highlights the challenges that trademark owners face when a name is used in a highly visible, expressive context such as a pop‑music album.
The ruling also underscores the importance of demonstrating consumer confusion and a direct link between the marks in question. Without evidence that consumers actually mistake the artist’s merchandise for the surfboard brand, courts have been reluctant to grant relief.
As of now, the lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, and no further action has been taken by either party. Lost Surfboards remains prepared to appeal, while Gaga’s team has not issued a formal response beyond confirming the court’s decision.
The outcome may influence future trademark disputes involving artists and brands that share common terminology, especially when the contested marks appear in different industries.
Lost Surfboards, founded by master shaper Matt Biolos, has carried the name “Mayhem” on its boards and apparel for more than a decade. In March 2025 the company filed the suit, alleging that Gaga’s new album Mayhem and the accompanying tour merchandise infringed the brand’s trademark. The filing also sought to block the pop star from selling the merchandise while the case was pending.
The core of Lost’s claim was consumer confusion. Attorneys for the surfboard maker argued that the identical word on Gaga’s clothing would lead the public to associate the brand with the artist, thereby diluting Lost’s distinctiveness. In May 2025 the company sought a preliminary injunction to halt sales of the merchandise, but the court denied that motion.
Judge Olguin’s opinion clarified why the court found the claim insufficient. He wrote that the allegations were “conclusory and insufficient to constitute an explicit indication, overt claim, or explicit misstatement identifying Lost as the source of Lady Gaga’s work.” He added that “the use of a mark alone is not enough … and nothing in the lawsuit suggests or otherwise indicates an affirmative misrepresentation in connection with the source or the content of Lady Gaga’s work.” The judge also noted that the alleged infringement involved an expressive work protected by the First Amendment, making a trademark claim difficult to sustain.
Lost’s attorney, Keith G. Bremer, responded to The Inertia that the ruling was based on a “misapplication of the governing legal standard.” Bremer said the company would appeal, arguing that the court’s analysis was inconsistent with Lost’s trademark rights.
The dismissal leaves Gaga free to continue selling Mayhem‑branded merchandise and to promote her album, which debuted on March 7, 2025. The record and its tour, the Mayhem Ball, have performed strongly in the United States and internationally, topping charts in 22 countries and earning multiple certifications.
While Lost has not yet outlined a specific appellate strategy, the company’s public statements indicate that it will pursue further legal action. The case highlights the challenges that trademark owners face when a name is used in a highly visible, expressive context such as a pop‑music album.
The ruling also underscores the importance of demonstrating consumer confusion and a direct link between the marks in question. Without evidence that consumers actually mistake the artist’s merchandise for the surfboard brand, courts have been reluctant to grant relief.
As of now, the lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, and no further action has been taken by either party. Lost Surfboards remains prepared to appeal, while Gaga’s team has not issued a formal response beyond confirming the court’s decision.
The outcome may influence future trademark disputes involving artists and brands that share common terminology, especially when the contested marks appear in different industries.
