$100M Battle Over Mayhem: Lost vs Lady Gaga
At the end of 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
Lost, 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 trademark registration was issued in 2015, and Lost filed a Declaration of Incontestability in 2021. Lost also holds international registrations, including in Japan.
The trademark 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 trademark, prompting Lost to file suit.
Alleged Visual Similarities
The 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.
Jurisdiction and Venue
Lost filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. This court has jurisdiction for several reasons:
This court, rather than the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), is the proper venue because Lost is seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and judgment on claims like unfair competition and trademark dilution. The TTAB handles administrative trademark disputes, such as opposition and cancellation proceedings, but it does not decide questions of infringement or award damages. Those are issues for a federal court.
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” trademark 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.
What it means: If you own a registered trademark, no one else is allowed to use a similar mark in a way that confuses customers about where the product is coming from.
Why it matters here: Lost argues that Gaga used their registered “Mayhem” mark, or something nearly identical, on clothing without permission, leading consumers to mistakenly believe it was Lost merchandise.
2. Common Law Trademark Infringement
Under California common law, a trademark owner may enforce trademark 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.
What it means: Even without a formal registration, a business can claim rights to a mark if it has used it long enough and built recognition.
Why it matters here: Lost has been using “Mayhem” since the 1980s. They claim Gaga’s use of the name creates confusion, even aside from their federal registration.
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.
What it means: It is illegal to mislead people into thinking your product is associated with or comes from a company it doesn’t.
Why it matters here: Lost says Gaga’s use of the name and logo makes it look like her merchandise is made or endorsed by Lost when it’s not.
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.
What it means: You can’t advertise or promote a product using misleading statements or branding that causes confusion about what or who is behind it.
Why it matters here: Lost claims Gaga’s marketing materials give consumers the false idea that her tour or merchandise is linked to Lost.
5. False Advertising (California Business and Professions Code § 17500)
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.
What it means: Under California law, advertisements can’t be untrue or misleading in any way.
Why it matters here: Lost claims Gaga’s promotions falsely suggest that her “Mayhem” brand is authorized or connected to Lost’s business.
6. Trademark Dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c))
Federal trademark dilution law protects famous trademarks 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.
What it means: Even if there’s no direct competition or confusion, using a famous brand in a way that weakens or blurs its uniqueness is prohibited.
Why it matters here: Lost argues that “Mayhem” is a famous mark, and Gaga’s use makes it less distinctive, reducing its power as a brand.
7. Trademark Dilution (California Business and Professions Code § 14247)
California law similarly protects famous trademarks from dilution. Lost asserts that Gaga’s use weakens the association between the trademark 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.
What it means: California offers similar protection as federal law against using a well-known brand in a way that weakens or tarnishes it.
Why it matters here: Lost says Gaga started using the mark only after it had become famous and has impaired its uniqueness in the eyes of the public.
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.
What it means: Any illegal, unfair, or deceptive act in business is prohibited under California law.
Why it matters here: Lost alleges that Gaga’s use of their mark and failure to stop after being warned qualifies as an unfair and deceptive practice under this statute.
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.
What it means: This broad legal claim involves business practices that deceive or take advantage of another company’s reputation.
Why it matters here: Lost says Gaga tried to “pass off” her products as theirs by using the same trademark, and that this is unfair, deceptive, and damaging.
Relief Sought By Lost International, LLC
Lost is seeking substantial monetary and injunctive relief, including:
Commentary and Observations
This case is far more than a standard trademark infringement dispute—it is a $100 million legal battle at the crossroads of legacy branding and global celebrity commerce. At its core is Lost International’s assertion that decades of brand-building around its “Mayhem” trademark are being unlawfully co-opted by one of the world’s most powerful entertainment figures.
The sheer size of the damages claim underscores the gravity of the alleged harm. Lost isn’t just asking for nominal compensation—it’s seeking at least $100 million, a figure that signals the perceived commercial value of its mark, the scale of brand dilution, and the magnitude of potential revenue lost to Lady Gaga’s merchandise campaign. While courts often scrutinize such early estimates, the demand highlights Lost’s view that the alleged infringement strikes at the heart of its identity and market share. Factors likely to weigh into any damages award include whether there was actual consumer confusion, the commercial intent behind Gaga’s use, the similarities in product categories, and whether she ignored legal warnings.
Legally, Lost is leveraging the full breadth of trademark and unfair competition law at both the federal and state levels to maximize pressure. This comprehensive strategy suggests the company is prepared for a complex fight and likely anticipates aggressive discovery and expert testimony to support its valuation and claims of dilution.
For her part, Lady Gaga is expected to raise significant defenses, potentially arguing that her use of “Mayhem” is a fair or nominative use, or even that it is protected by artistic expression principles under the First Amendment. If her legal team can successfully position the use as non-confusing and creatively independent, it may undercut the strength of Lost’s infringement allegations.
Ultimately, this case could become a landmark decision on how far a celebrity brand can go in repurposing existing marks for entertainment-related merchandising—and how forcefully courts will protect established commercial trademarks when they collide with star power.
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. We will keep a close eye on this case and provide periodic updates as the case evolves – check back soon!
Early 2026 CASE UPDATE – Lost International, LLC v. Lady Gaga
Since this lawsuit was filed, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has issued a significant procedural ruling—though not a final merits decision. On December 15, 2025, Judge Fernando M. Olguin (C.D. Cal.) denied Lost International’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have halted Lady Gaga’s “MAYHEM” merch sales while the case proceeds.
The court analyzed the trademark dispute through the First Amendment lens that applies when trademarks are used in connection with expressive works, applying the Rogers framework (as recognized in Ninth Circuit precedent) and concluding that Gaga’s use of “MAYHEM” was artistically relevant and not “explicitly misleading” as to source or content—meaning the Lanham Act claims, at least at the injunction stage, were unlikely to succeed.
Practically, that denial meant Gaga could continue selling “Mayhem” branded merchandise during the trademark litigation, and it shifted the case into a more conventional motion-and-discovery posture rather than emergency injunctive relief. Commentators covering the ruling emphasized that it was an early-stage win for Gaga, but not a final judgment disposing of all claims.
As for where things stand now, publicly available docket summaries indicate the case has not simply ended: defendants filed a motion to dismiss (directed at a Second Amended Complaint), and the court temporarily stayed discovery while that motion is pending. The motion-to-dismiss hearing was taken off calendar and placed under submission, with the court indicating a written ruling would follow.