A lawyer’s take on Eminem’s Slim Shady v Swim Shady trademark dispute

A Sydney couple selling beach umbrellas under the “Swim Shady” brand are currently going head-to-head in an international legal battle with US rapper Eminem, who claims the brand name closely resembles the term “Slim Shady”.

Last year, the brand filed a trademark in the US for the term “Swim Shady”, which was granted. Shortly afterwards, Eminem’s team filed a petition to cancel the trademark. Eminem objected to the “Swim Shady” trademark on several grounds, including one relating to consumer law: that the umbrella brand could mislead or deceive customers into thinking they’re buying a product associated with the rapper. He also accused the Sydney-based brand of creating a “false association” with the rapper. Eminem continues to sell official Slim Shady merchandise – one of several income streams that have built his net worth to a reported US$250 million.

Eminem trademarked the name Slim Shady in the US in 1999 with the release of his album at that time. However, he only filed a trademark for the Slim Shady name in Australia in January 2025.

Swim Shady contends the two parties are in significantly different industries and that a beach and lifestyle wear retail brand in Australia is unlikely to be confused with the alter ego of a US rapper. Swim Shady has also filed non-use applications against Eminem’s Shady and Shady Limited trademarks in Australia, arguing they have not been consistently used.

The April 2026 hearing before the Australian Registrar of Trade Marks has now concluded, but a formal decision is still expected within the next 3–13 weeks. So, while this is a development, it’s not quite a final ruling yet. That said, there’s plenty to unpack already.

Lessons learnt for musicians and artists

VIEW ALL

The Swim Shady case reinforces what the Taylor Swift “Showgirl” lawsuit also makes painfully clear: your artist’s name, alter ego, or creative persona can be a commercial asset that needs active legal protection, not just cultural recognition.

Eminem has challenged the “Shady” name across Australia, the US, the UK, and other countries, but the non-use angle that Swim Shady is pursuing is the critical lesson here: Swim Shady is attempting to cancel two of Eminem’s existing trademarks, “Shady” and “Shady Limited”, on the basis of alleged non-use. If you register a trademark and don’t actively use it in commerce in a given territory, you can lose it. Artists who register trademarks globally but only merchandise in certain markets are exposed.

On the Swift side, the lesson cuts the other way: Swift’s team applied to register “The Life of a Showgirl” as a trademark in 2025 but were denied due to the similarity with an existing mark, yet continued using the phrase anyway. We know from the recent decision in Katy Perry in Australia that even the most powerful artists in the world are not above trademark law. A refusal notice from a trademark office is a serious red flag – proceeding regardless dramatically increases legal and reputational risk.

The key takeaways for artists are to register early, register in every market you operate in, and actually use the mark in each territory. And when your own trademark application gets knocked back, take it seriously.

Tips for brands to prevent this from happening

Both cases illustrate how trademark disputes arise not just from bad faith, but also from gaps in due diligence. For brands:

• Do clearance searches before launch: Swim Shady registered its trademark across multiple countries, but the name’s obvious similarity to one of the most recognisable names in music made a challenge almost inevitable. A proper search, including phonetic and visual similarity checks, would have flagged the risk immediately.
• Don’t rely on a single territory’s approval: IP Australia initially approved Swim Shady’s trademark in October 2024, but that didn’t prevent challenges in other countries. Approval in one jurisdiction is not a green light globally. Register proactively in all markets where you plan to grow.
• If you receive a trademark refusal or opposition notice, act immediately: The USPTO notified Swift’s team that “The Life of a Showgirl” was likely to be confused with an existing mark, and they continued using it anyway without contacting the original trademark holder. That’s exactly the kind of decision that turns a manageable dispute into expensive litigation.

Reflections

These two cases together paint a vivid picture of where trademark law is heading in the entertainment industry. The Swim Shady case is genuinely fascinating because it flips the usual dynamic. Swim Shady is pursuing the cancellation of Eminem’s existing trademarks on the basis of alleged non-use.

A small Australian beachwear start-up is going head-to-head against one of the best-selling artists of all time. Eminem has previously gone after brands like Shadzy and Shady Character, and is currently locked in another dispute over the “Reasonably Shady” podcast, so he’s clearly an aggressive enforcer. But aggressive enforcement doesn’t guarantee active use in every category and every market, which is what non-use proceedings test.

The Swift case is arguably more cautionary. As artists increasingly operate as fully integrated brands, spanning merchandise, collaborations, and direct-to-consumer retail, courts are likely to face more questions over where expressive use ends and trademark use begins.

The bigger you are, the more your commercial footprint can inadvertently crush smaller creators who built something legitimate. That’s not a great look, and it’s avoidable with proper legal process upfront. The broader trend is clear: artist brands are corporate assets, and they need to be managed like one.

Aparna Watal is a partner at Halfords IP.