Similar but different? You be the judge now.
A surfboard maker’s crusade against Lady Gaga has failed. For over a year, the Matt Biolos-helmed manufacturer …Lost has been attempting to sue the pop superstar for trademark infringement. On Tuesday, a judge finally dismissed the case.
The decision came down from Judge Fernando M. Olguin on Tuesday, August 18. As Billboard reports, the board maker failed to provide a strong enough case to warrant moving forward. “These allegations are conclusory and insufficient to constitute an explicit indication, overt claim, or explicit misstatement identifying Lost as the source of Lady Gaga’s work,” the judge wrote in a decision obtained by Billboard. “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.”
…Lost’s case rested on the idea that consumers may be confused between the company’s longstanding “Mayhem” trademark and Gaga’s tour merchandise for her seventh studio album of the same name. “Lady Gaga’s use of ‘MAYHEM’ on a commercial item, namely clothing, explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or the content of the mark and specifically, her nationwide concert will cause the consuming public to see …Lost’s mark and associate it with Lady Gaga,” wrote …Lost lawyers in a motion to file a preliminary injunction against the musician in May 2025 – which would have prevented her from selling clothing with the Mayhem logo while the case was still ongoing if it weren’t for the fact that it was immediately thrown out.
However, …Lost remains undeterred by repeated defeat. Despite being unable to produce convincing evidence that consumers would be confused between a surfboard company and tour merch for one of the most famous musicians in the world, they have vowed to continue the fight.
“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision and intend to appeal,” wrote …Lost attorney Keith G. Bremer to The Inertia. “We believe the ruling rests on a misapplication of the governing legal standard and reaches a result that we believe is inconsistent with our client’s trademark rights. We remain confident in our client’s position and look forward to presenting these issues to the appellate court.”
