Lady Gaga wins dismissal in lawsuit alleging her “Mayhem” album name infringed a surfboard brand

Lady Gaga has prevailed in a lawsuit that challenged the use of the word “Mayhem” as the title of her album, according to a report from Billboard on Aug. 19. The case centered on an allegation that the album name represented a disregard for an existing line of Mayhem surfboards.

Billboard reported that the judge ended the matter by invoking the First Amendment. In the court’s reasoning as described by Billboard, the decision concluded that the challenged use of “Mayhem” was protected expression and therefore could not proceed as the plaintiffs had framed it.

The dispute, as characterized in the coverage, pitted the album title against a claim tied to a surfboard brand that uses “Mayhem.” The plaintiffs argued that Gaga’s album name improperly intersected with their asserted rights and branding, but the court rejected that theory at an early stage.

In describing the judge’s approach, Billboard said the ruling addressed the expressive nature of the album title and treated it as protected speech rather than an actionable commercial infringement claim. The judge specifically cited First Amendment protections and characterized the plaintiffs’ complaint in terms of a lack of viable legal grounds under that framework.

The dismissal means the plaintiffs’ case did not reach a resolution on the merits in discovery or trial, at least as reflected in the public reporting. It also shifts the dispute from the question of factual competition in the marketplace to the legal question of when branding-related claims can be brought against titles and expressive works.

For Lady Gaga and her team, the ruling allows the “Mayhem” album branding to stand without the uncertainty of ongoing litigation tied to the surfboard brand allegation, at least unless the parties pursue additional review. For the surfboard brand, the decision indicates that similar claims may face heightened legal barriers when they target artistic titles rather than purely functional product labeling.

More broadly, the case reflects how courts continue to manage the boundary between trademark and expressive works. While brand owners can seek protection against confusing or misleading uses, this ruling, as described by Billboard, underscores that First Amendment considerations can play a decisive role when the challenged element is part of an artistic work.