On April 24, 2026, Taylor Swift's company TAS Rights Management filed three trademark applications with the USPTO. Two cover her voice. One covers her image in performance.
Here is what the applications actually contain, where the legal analysis gets complicated, and what the strategy means for any creator building a career right now.
What she actually filed
All three applications were filed the same day, represented by attorney Rebecca Liebowitz of Venable.
First sound trademark. Serial No. 99784980
This soundmark covers a specific audio recording of Swift promoting her album on Amazon Music. The filed phrase:
"Hey, it's Taylor Swift, and you can listen to my new album, 'The Life of a Showgirl,' on demand on Amazon Music Unlimited."
Listen to the official USPTO specimen (opens in new tab) →
Second sound trademark. Serial No. 99784979
A different recording at a lower pitch, used for Spotify:
"Hey, it's Taylor. My brand new album 'The Life of a Showgirl' is out on Oct. 3 and you can click to presave it so you can listen to it on Spotify."
Listen to the official USPTO specimen (opens in new tab) →
Visual trademark. Serial No. 99784977
The visual mark covers the performance photograph filed with the application. The USPTO's mark description verbatim:
"A photograph of Taylor Swift holding a pink guitar, with a black strap and wearing a multi-colored iridescent bodysuit with silver boots. She is standing on a pink stage in front of a multi-colored microphone with purple lights in the background."
Color claim: pink, black, purple, and silver.
View the filed specimen on the USPTO record (PDF) →
All three are public federal records. Anyone can look them up in the USPTO trademark search database.
What a soundmark requires
A soundmark is a trademark in audio form. The legal test is identical to any other mark: the sound must function as a source identifier. It tells consumers who a product or service comes from.
The classic examples built that association through consistent commercial repetition. The NBC chimes: three notes, same sequence, always NBC (USPTO Serial 72349496). The MGM lion's roar: plays before the studio's films, always MGM (USPTO Serial 73553567). Intel's five-note chime, registered as a sound mark by Intel (USPTO Serial 75332744). Pitbull's grito, his signature "EEEEEEEYOOOOOO" call rooted in the Latin musical tradition of the grito, registered with the USPTO after years of documented commercial use.
Each of those sounds stopped being just a sound and became a brand signal. Listeners encountered it the same way, in the same context, repeatedly, until the connection between sound and source was automatic. That learned commercial association is what trademark law protects.
Where the legal analysis gets complicated
The recordings Swift filed tell a different story. Both are promotional clips tied to a specific album release on a specific platform. The first was recorded to drive Amazon Music streams. The second, Spotify presaves. Neither was designed to recur as a consistent brand signal across her commercial output over time.
Trademark law asks a precise question: does this sound identify the commercial source of goods or services to a consumer who encounters it? The NBC chimes answer that in three notes, in any context. "Hey, it's Taylor Swift, listen to my new album on Amazon Music Unlimited" does something else. It identifies her as a person. It promotes a release. Those are not the same function as a mark used consistently to build a commercial source association.
The structural problem goes further. Trademark law does not limit registered rights by the type of use. A registered mark is enforceable against all infringing uses, not only AI-generated ones. If these soundmarks register, the question does not stop at whether an AI company can synthesize her voice. It extends to whether a tribute artist, a parody account, or anyone who deliberately emulates her vocal style faces a trademark claim. That is a significant expansion of what trademark law has historically covered, and the USPTO examining attorney assigned to these applications will need to decide where the line falls.
Standard examination takes 8 to 14 months. Whether the marks survive is one question. What they accomplish in the meantime is another.
What the filings are actually designed to do
A federally registered trademark gives the holder something state-law rights rarely provide: a nationwide cause of action with the ability to demand platform takedowns backed by federal registration. That enforcement tool does not require a lawsuit to be effective.
Matthew McConaughey secured eight trademark registrations through the same approach, including a soundmark on "Alright, alright, alright" (USPTO Reg. No. 8070191). The pattern across artist-protective trademark filings is consistent: registration unlocks federal infringement standing, supports administrative platform takedowns, and signals to potential infringers that a legal team is monitoring the public record. Whether or not the USPTO ultimately approves Swift's specific marks, the filings themselves shift the deterrent landscape from the moment they are public.
Why artists are improvising with trademark law
The reason any of this matters is that a comprehensive federal AI identity law does not exist. Swift has been the subject of multiple high-profile AI-generated identity incidents over the past two years across advertising, political, and platform contexts, none of which produced direct federal enforcement, because no federal statute currently governs AI-generated identity misuse as such.
Some states have moved. Tennessee was the first, in March 2024, with the ELVIS Act, which formally protects an individual's voice and likeness as a property right against unauthorized AI-generated reproduction. Arkansas followed in February 2025 by amending its Frank Broyles Publicity Rights Protection Act (HB 1071) to cover AI-generated reproductions and simulations. Other states have introduced similar legislation. California and New York have right-of-publicity statutes that reach unauthorized commercial use of a person's name, likeness, and voice, though the scope and remedies vary by situation.
So artists are building their legal perimeter from the tools that exist now: trademark, copyright, state voice statutes, and platform takedown procedures. None is a complete solution. Together they represent the available options for anyone operating before a comprehensive federal framework arrives.
What this means if you are building a creative career
Swift's advantage is scale, not access. She has a dedicated legal team and corporate entities behind these filings. Most working artists do not. The legal tools she is using, though, are not exclusive to her.
As both a practicing attorney and a working artist, the questions I hear most often from creators are straightforward: Can someone use my name without my permission? Can someone fake my voice in an ad? What do I actually own? The answers all trace back to the same point: what you have registered, and when.
Start with your name. A federal trademark on your artist name, stage name, or brand gives you enforceable nationwide rights to that name. It is the legal foundation. Soundmarks, visual marks, monitoring, and enforcement all build on it.
If you use a specific audio element consistently across your commercial output, a soundmark application may be worth exploring. The standard is high. The sound must function as a source identifier through consistent commercial use, not just be a recognizable clip of your voice. Whether a particular element qualifies is a fact-specific analysis.
You do not need a registered trademark to file takedown requests on major platforms for AI-generated content that misuses your identity. Most platforms have procedures for this. They are inconsistently applied, but they are available now, without waiting for a registration to issue.
If you are in a state with AI voice or likeness protection legislation, those protections apply regardless of trademark status. Tennessee's ELVIS Act and Arkansas's amended Publicity Rights Protection Act are two of the strongest state-level frameworks currently in force; other states have introduced similar legislation. California and New York have right-of-publicity frameworks that reach certain forms of commercial misuse.
The time to address your trademark position is before you need it. Swift faced years of AI-generated incidents before these filings. Most creators cannot absorb that kind of exposure before acting.
Aghil Ebrahimi, Esq. is the founder of StarGuard Law, licensed in California, Ontario, and Quebec. He is also a touring artist with 500K+ followers, which means he represents exactly the intersection his clients occupy.
StarGuard Law handles trademark registration from clearance through registration, including soundmark applications and ongoing monitoring. If you are an artist or creator thinking through AI identity protection, see our Artist & Creator Representation practice.
If you are an AI company or tech founder working through the trademark side of your launch, this guide covers the registration process for AI startups specifically.
This article is for general information only — not legal advice.
