Lady Gaga is fighting back after defeating a trademark lawsuit over the title of her album Mayhem, asking a federal court to make the surf brand behind the case pay nearly $250,000 in legal expenses.
The pop superstar, whose real name is Stefani Germanotta, is seeking reimbursement for approximately $232,484 in attorneys’ fees accumulated while defending herself against a lawsuit filed by Lost Surfboards.
Gaga’s legal team has characterized the case as an improper attempt to capitalize on the singer’s enormous fame, arguing that the lawsuit was never a legitimate trademark dispute but instead functioned as what they describe as a “publicity stunt.”
At the center of the dispute is the word “Mayhem,” the title of Gaga’s studio album and a term that has also been associated with Lost Surfboards’ products for decades.
The surf company claimed Gaga’s use of the word could create confusion among consumers and suggested that the branding associated with the album and merchandise was similar enough to its own trademark to cause people to believe there was some kind of connection or endorsement.
A federal judge ultimately rejected those arguments, ruling that the surf brand had failed to establish a sufficient likelihood of consumer confusion.
Now Gaga’s attorneys are asking the court to go a step further and require Lost Surfboards to cover the substantial legal costs she incurred during the case.
Lady Gaga Calls the Lawsuit a ‘Publicity Stunt’
In a sharply worded filing, Gaga’s attorney Orin Snyder argued that the lawsuit should never have reached the stage it did.
According to the filing, the case represented an attempt to use the legal system to benefit from Gaga’s celebrity rather than a legitimate effort to protect trademark rights.
“A litigant should not be permitted to use the federal courts to launch a publicity stunt masquerading as a lawsuit against a high-profile artist,” Snyder wrote.
He also argued that litigation should not be used as a tool to pressure a celebrity into settling a case simply because continuing to fight it becomes financially and professionally exhausting.
The filing describes the dispute as an attempt to extract money from Gaga by leveraging the cost and disruption of litigation.
For one of the world’s most recognizable recording artists, the lawsuit came at a particularly demanding time. Gaga was simultaneously dealing with the enormous workload associated with her music career and international touring commitments.
Her attorneys say the litigation became especially burdensome because Lost Surfboards continued pursuing the case even after suffering an early setback in court.
How the ‘Mayhem’ Lawsuit Began
Lost Surfboards filed its lawsuit in March 2025, arguing that Gaga’s use of the word “Mayhem” infringed upon its trademark rights.
The surf company said it had used the Mayhem name in connection with its business since the 1980s.
Its complaint reportedly argued that Gaga’s album title represented a serious threat to the company’s trademark and claimed that the presentation of the word on album-related merchandise could increase the likelihood of confusion.
Lost also pointed to the stylized red logo associated with Gaga’s Mayhem branding, arguing that it was sufficiently similar to the surf brand’s logo.
The dispute therefore went beyond the simple fact that both parties used the same word.
Lost argued that the combination of the name, visual presentation and merchandise could make consumers believe that the album, tour or related products were connected to the surf company.
Gaga’s legal team strongly disagreed.
The defense relied in large part on the legal protections surrounding artistic and expressive works.
Why the First Amendment Became Central to the Case
One of the most important aspects of the dispute involved the relationship between trademark law and freedom of expression.
American courts have historically given substantial protection to artists who use trademarks or trademarked words within expressive works such as music, films, books and other creative projects.
The reason is relatively straightforward: trademark protection cannot generally be used to prevent artists from communicating ideas or creating works simply because a business happens to use the same word.
That principle became particularly important in Gaga’s case.
The album Mayhem is an expressive artistic work rather than a competing surfboard product. Gaga’s lawyers therefore argued that the title was protected expression and that consumers were unlikely to interpret it as identifying Lost Surfboards as the source of her music.
The judge ultimately agreed.
Judge Rejects Lost Surfboards’ Arguments
The surf company suffered an important early defeat in December, when Judge Fernando M. Olguin rejected a request for an injunction that would have forced Gaga to stop using the name.
The decision was significant because such an injunction could have had immediate consequences for the singer’s album, merchandise and touring activities.
Instead, the court concluded that Lost had not demonstrated the necessary likelihood of success.
The case continued, however, and ultimately resulted in a final ruling that was unfavorable to Lost Surfboards.
The judge concluded that the lawsuit was barred by established First Amendment precedents.
In the ruling, the court found that the allegations did not amount to an explicit indication or claim that Lost Surfboards was the source of Gaga’s work.
Simply using the same word, the judge concluded, was not enough.
That decision effectively ended the trademark dispute at the trial-court level, although the surf company indicated that it disagreed with the ruling.
Gaga’s Lawyers Say the Case Became Increasingly Burdensome
According to Gaga’s attorneys, the lawsuit became even more problematic after Lost Surfboards suffered its initial defeat.
Rather than abandoning the litigation after the court rejected the requested injunction, Gaga’s legal team says the company continued pursuing the case.
They characterize the next nine months as an expensive and unnecessary escalation.
One of the issues highlighted by Gaga’s lawyers was the demand that the superstar participate in a full-day deposition.
For an artist performing internationally, such a proceeding could be particularly disruptive.
Snyder argued that requiring Gaga to spend an entire day answering questions in litigation that had already encountered significant legal obstacles served little legitimate purpose.
“A full-day deposition of a world-famous artist at the height of a grueling international tour, in service of claims already held barred, had one function: to make continued litigation so disruptive that settlement became cheaper than vindication,” the filing states.
Gaga’s lawyers say the burden placed on the singer was itself part of the pressure created by the litigation.
They argue that trademark enforcement should not become a mechanism for forcing a defendant to settle simply because the cost of fighting is overwhelming.
The $232,484 Legal Bill
Gaga is now asking the court to shift approximately $232,484 in legal fees to Lost Surfboards.
Under federal trademark law, successful parties can sometimes recover attorneys’ fees when a case qualifies as an “exceptional” matter.
That standard is not automatically satisfied simply because one side loses.
Gaga’s attorneys therefore have to make a stronger argument: that the circumstances surrounding Lost’s lawsuit were sufficiently unusual or improper to justify making the company responsible for the singer’s legal expenses.
Her lawyers argue that the case meets that threshold.
They contend that the lawsuit was “exceptional” from the beginning and became even more so as it continued after the court’s early ruling.
The attorneys also challenge the underlying theory of consumer confusion.
According to their filing, Lost was effectively asking the court to believe that consumers could mistake merchandise associated with one of the world’s most famous pop stars for products from a surf shop in San Clemente.
Lost Surfboards Has Disagreed With the Decision
The legal battle may not necessarily be over.
Following the court’s ruling against the trademark lawsuit, Lost Surfboards’ attorney Keith G. Bremer said that he and his client respectfully disagreed with the decision and intended to appeal.
As of September 14, however, no notice of appeal had reportedly been filed.
That leaves the possibility of another chapter in the dispute, depending on whether Lost ultimately decides to challenge the ruling.
For Gaga, the immediate priority is different: recovering the money she says she should never have had to spend defending herself.
The singer’s request for attorneys’ fees places the spotlight on a broader issue in celebrity trademark disputes — namely, how far businesses can go when attempting to protect a brand name that is also an ordinary word.
The Bigger Question Behind the Dispute
The word “Mayhem” is not an invented term created solely for a particular brand.
It is a common dictionary word associated with chaos, disorder and confusion.
That distinction is important because trademark law generally focuses not merely on whether two parties use the same word, but on how that word is being used and whether consumers are likely to believe that two products or services come from the same source.
In Gaga’s case, her attorneys argue that the context was obvious.
The word appeared as the title of a musical album and as part of the branding for a major international artist.
Her name, image and identity were also prominently connected with the project.
From Gaga’s perspective, that made it difficult to understand how consumers would conclude that the album or tour merchandise came from a surfboard company.
The court’s ruling ultimately sided with that reasoning.
What Happens Next for Lady Gaga?
For Gaga, the legal dispute is now largely separate from the creative work surrounding Mayhem.
The album and its associated visual identity remain part of her broader artistic career, while her attorneys continue pursuing reimbursement for the costs of defending the project.
The case also highlights a recurring tension in the entertainment industry.
Artists regularly use words, symbols, concepts and cultural references that may also appear in commercial branding. Businesses, meanwhile, have legitimate interests in protecting trademarks from uses that genuinely confuse consumers.
The challenge for courts is determining where legitimate trademark protection ends and artistic expression begins.
In Gaga’s case, the judge concluded that Lost Surfboards had not shown the kind of consumer confusion necessary to overcome the protections surrounding her creative work.
Now the question is whether the court will also agree that the circumstances were serious enough to make the surf company responsible for Gaga’s legal expenses.
Conclusion
Lady Gaga’s battle over the Mayhem name has evolved from a trademark dispute into a larger debate about artistic freedom, celebrity lawsuits and the limits of brand protection.
Lost Surfboards argued that Gaga’s use of the name could confuse consumers and infringe its trademark rights. Gaga’s attorneys countered that the album was an expressive artistic work and that simply sharing a common word with a business does not establish trademark infringement.
The federal court ultimately rejected Lost’s claims, finding that the allegations did not demonstrate the kind of confusion necessary to identify the surf company as the source of Gaga’s music or merchandise.
Now Gaga wants compensation for the legal fight.
Her attorneys are seeking approximately $232,484 in legal fees, arguing that the lawsuit was exceptional from the moment it was filed and became even more burdensome as it continued.
Whether the court awards the requested amount remains to be determined. Lost Surfboards has previously indicated that it disagrees with the ruling and could still pursue an appeal.
For Gaga, however, the message from her legal team is already clear: defending creative work should not become an open-ended financial burden, particularly when the underlying dispute centers on the use of an ordinary word.
The final decision on the legal fees could therefore become the next important chapter in a case that began with a single word — “Mayhem.”