Lady Gaga has asked a US federal court to order Lost Surfboards to pay $250,000 in legal fees following the dismissal of its trademark lawsuit over her “Mayhem” album and merchandise.
The request was filed on September 11, 2026, after Judge Fernando M. Olguin dismissed the case on August 18, ruling that the surfboard company had not presented sufficient allegations that Gaga’s use of “Mayhem” explicitly misled consumers about the source of her work.
The dispute began in March 2025 when Lost Surfboards, also known as Lost International LLC, sued Gaga over her use of the word “Mayhem” in connection with her seventh studio album, tour and merchandise.
The company argued that consumers could confuse Gaga’s use of the name with its longstanding “Mayhem” trademark for surfboards and apparel. It had sought damages and previously asked the court to stop Gaga from using the name on certain merchandise.
That request for a preliminary injunction was rejected in 2025.
In his August ruling, Judge Olguin dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning the case cannot simply be brought again in the same form.
The judge found that the allegations did not show an explicit misrepresentation connecting Lost Surfboards to Gaga’s music or merchandise.
Following the ruling, Gaga’s lawyers filed a motion seeking $250,000 to cover the legal expenses she incurred during the litigation.
Her attorneys described the lawsuit as a “publicity stunt masquerading as a lawsuit” and argued that the case subjected Gaga to months of costly litigation.
The legal team also alleged that the company’s demands included a full-day deposition of Gaga during her international tour and described the proceedings as an effort to pressure her into an expensive settlement.
Lost Surfboards had previously said it disagreed with the court’s dismissal and indicated that it intended to appeal the decision.
The company’s attorney, Keith G. Bremer, said after the ruling, “We respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision and intend to appeal.”
The attorney added, “We believe the ruling rests on a misapplication of the governing legal standard and reaches a result that we believe is inconsistent with our client’s trademark rights.”
As of the latest information provided, there is no indication that a formal appeal has been filed.
Ademide Adebayo
Follow us on:
