Trademark Showdown: Lost International v. Lady Gaga
In March 2025, a high-profile trademark dispute erupted in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, pitting famed surf and lifestyle brand Lost International, LLC (“Lost”) against international music icon Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, professionally known as Lady Gaga. At the center of the controversy is the word “Mayhem” — a trademark Lost claims to have cultivated for decades, and one which Lady Gaga allegedly co-opted for commercial use without permission.
Background and Factual Allegations
Background and Factual AllegationsLost, a California LLC, was founded in 1985 and has since grown into a globally recognized surf and lifestyle brand. According to the complaint, Lost has used the mark “Mayhem” since 1988 in connection with its surfboards, apparel, accessories, and surf videos. The name “Mayhem” is closely associated with Lost’s co-founder, Matt Biolos, and the brand has marketed clothing and gear bearing the mark for decades.
The plaintiff holds a federal trademark registration for “Mayhem” (Reg. No. 4790623) covering apparel including t-shirts, shorts, jackets, caps, and more. The registration was issued in 2015, and Lost filed a Declaration of Incontestability in 2021. Lost also holds international trademark registrations, including in Japan.
The dispute erupted when Lady Gaga released a music album titled “Mayhem” in March 2025. According to the complaint, she simultaneously launched a concert tour and began selling promotional merchandise — including t-shirts, sweatshirts, and other apparel — all prominently featuring the word “Mayhem.” Lost claims that Gaga’s merchandise uses a stylized design nearly identical to its own “Mayhem” logo.
Despite being notified of the alleged trademark infringement through a cease-and-desist letter, Gaga reportedly continued her use of the mark, prompting Lost to file suit.
Alleged Visual Similarities
Alleged Visual SimilaritiesThe complaint contains side-by-side comparisons of Lost’s stylized “Mayhem” logo and Lady Gaga’s merchandise. Lost alleges the stylized mark used by Gaga is not merely similar, but nearly identical to its own. These visual elements, Lost argues, amplify the likelihood of consumer confusion, particularly among the demographic overlap between fashion-forward music fans and lifestyle brand consumers.
Plaintiff’s Claims in Detail
Lost asserts nine causes of action, encompassing both federal and state trademark laws as well as common law doctrines.
1. Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
Section 32 of the Lanham Act prohibits the unauthorized use of a registered trademark where such use is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception. Lost alleges that Lady Gaga used the registered “Mayhem” mark on apparel without consent, creating marketplace confusion. As the mark is registered and incontestable, Lost claims it is entitled to statutory protections and remedies, including injunctive relief and monetary damages.
2. Common Law Trademark Infringement
Under California common law, a trademark owner may enforce rights in a mark based on prior use, even without a registration. Lost asserts that it has established common law rights through continuous and exclusive use of “Mayhem” since 1988. Lady Gaga’s use allegedly infringes those rights by creating a likelihood of confusion and misappropriating Lost’s reputation and goodwill.
3. False Designation of Origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
This provision of the Lanham Act prohibits misleading representations that suggest an affiliation or origin that does not exist. Lost alleges that Gaga’s use of “Mayhem” gives the false impression that her merchandise, album, or tour is affiliated with or endorsed by Lost. Such false associations are considered harmful to both consumer trust and brand reputation.
4. False Advertising (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
This Lanham Act provision also prohibits commercial advertising that misrepresents the nature or origin of goods or services. Lost argues that Gaga’s marketing and promotional materials misleadingly suggest that her “Mayhem” products are affiliated with or sponsored by Lost. The claim focuses on Gaga’s use of the mark in internet and social media advertising.
5. False Advertising (California Business and Professions Code § 17500)
Section 17500 of California’s Business and Professions Code prohibits untrue or misleading statements in advertising. Lost alleges that Gaga’s promotional materials contain misleading representations that create a false impression of brand association. Because this claim is under California law, it adds an additional state-level avenue for relief.
6. Trademark Dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c))
Federal trademark dilution law protects famous marks from uses that diminish their uniqueness, even without causing consumer confusion. Lost contends that “Mayhem” has acquired fame and distinctiveness, and that Gaga’s unauthorized use blurs the distinct source identity of the mark. This type of harm, known as “blurring,” allegedly reduces the mark’s ability to function as a unique brand identifier.
7. Trademark Dilution (California Business and Professions Code § 14247)
California law similarly protects famous marks from dilution. Lost asserts that Gaga’s use weakens the association between the mark and its brand, and that her conduct was willful. The plaintiff seeks enhanced remedies under California’s statute, including treble damages, arguing that the dilution occurred after the mark had already become famous in the relevant market.
8. Unfair Business Practices (California Business and Professions Code § 17200)
California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts. Lost argues that Gaga’s use of the mark violates multiple laws and constitutes unfair conduct by exploiting Lost’s intellectual property for commercial gain. The UCL allows for equitable remedies, including injunctive relief and restitution.
9. Common Law Unfair Competition
This catch-all claim covers various deceptive and unethical business practices under California common law. Lost alleges that Gaga’s conduct amounts to “passing off” — attempting to sell her merchandise under the guise of Lost’s established brand. The complaint also accuses Gaga of malicious intent, seeking exemplary damages for willful misconduct.
Relief Sought
Conclusion
The case of LOST International, LLC v. Lady Gaga is a vivid example of the intersection between entertainment branding and established trademark rights. It underscores the high stakes that arise when commercial artistic ventures overlap with pre-existing intellectual property. Whether Gaga’s use of “Mayhem” will be deemed infringing, or a permissible exercise of artistic branding, will hinge on how the court weighs the visual similarities, public recognition, and likelihood of confusion. As the lawsuit unfolds, it promises to be a high-profile test of trademark strength in the age of celebrity commerce and global merchandising.
