Eminem has launched a new trademark dispute, claiming the Australian beachwear firm, Swim Shady, is capitalizing on a reputation tied to his profession.

The icon filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in search of cancellation of a federal trademark registration for Swim Shady, a Sydney-based model that sells umbrellas, luggage, and seaside equipment. Eminem’s attorneys argue the corporate’s title unlawfully echoes his Slim Shady persona and dangers deceptive customers.

According to the petition, Swim Shady creates a “false association” with Eminem, whose authorized title is Marshall Mathers III. His attorneys say the corporate is benefiting from the repute he constructed over greater than twenty years. Under USPTO guidelines, the model should reply to the submitting subsequent week or danger default.

Eminem has held registered rights to Slim Shady since 1999, the 12 months he launched The Slim Shady LP. That album helped outline his public id and set the stage for the Grammy-winning single “The Real Slim Shady,” which cemented the title in world popular culture. His authorized crew argues the mark stays “distinctive and famous,” leaving no authorized justification for comparable branding.

Eminem Sues Australian Brand Swim Shady

Regulatory filings present Swim Shady first registered its title with Australian authorities in September 2023. The firm initially operated beneath the title Slim Shade earlier than adopting its present title. It secured a U.S. trademark earlier this 12 months, a transfer that prompted Eminem’s problem.

The authorized query facilities on client notion. Eminem’s attorneys say the similarity between the names creates a chance of confusion and improperly hyperlinks the beachwear line to the artist.

Swim Shady is represented by the Australian mental property agency Meyer West IP. The firm has not commented on the case.

The dispute follows one other latest trademark conflict involving a world music determine. An Australian court docket final 12 months reversed a ruling that discovered Katy Perry had infringed on the trademark of designer Katie Perry, who sells clothes beneath her beginning title. That case highlighted the authorized friction between private branding and business logos.

Eminem’s petition now provides a high-profile check for the boundaries of brand name parody and wordplay. The continuing may make clear how far corporations can go when invoking language related to distinguished recording artists.