Swift not only used ‘Evermore’ to promote her own merchandise, but the park claims that Swift released her album always it creates ‘real confusion’ around its own brand. Visitors asked staff if the album ‘was the result of a collaboration between Evermore and Taylor Swift or some other kind of relationship’, the case reads. And on the day of the always album release (December 10), the park says the traffic on its website increased 330.4% compared to the previous day.
While one thinks it’s a good thing for the park, the suit addresses it as well. When Swift’s attorney responded to a stop-and-stop letter sent by the park on Dec. 29, the case said they claimed: “If this is something, your client’s website traffic has actually increased as a result of the release of Swift’s recent album, which in turn could only help improve your client’s score. ”
On this idea that the park ” benefits from promoting defendant’s trademark ”, the park says that Swift’s team shows a ‘misunderstanding of trademark law’. To confirm this, the lawsuit cites Audi v. D’Amato (2004), which reads: ‘The court finds that the loss suffered by a trademark holder due to the unauthorized use of its trademarks, the loss of the trademark holder’s ability to control its reputation. In the context of trademark litigation, the grounds for irreparable harm include loss of reputation, loss of trade and loss of goodwill, regardless of whether the offender uses the mark well or favorably. “
Since the theme park’s brand specifically covers ‘live visual and audio performances by an actor’, Swift will definitely be an ‘actor’ as a reference to her performances in the video ‘willow’ and other credits in film and TV.
The lawsuit also mentions two original music notes that the park made under the trademark “Evermore” and sold and streamed online, claiming that Swift’s album made the releases more difficult to find. And that points to Swift’s ‘willow’ music video, where she comes out of a hole in a tree and says it mimics the art of the albums the park has released.
“Despite her public concern about small and struggling artists facing bigger and better-funded opponents,” the lawsuit says, “Swift now wants to bury the Evermore albums previously released by Evermore and misuse the EVERMORE brand without compensation to Evermore because the company is “experiencing financial difficulties as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic” and can not afford to sue for long. “
Swift’s team responds to the matter and calls it ‘frivolous’ in a statement Billboard. It quoted a Business in Utah reports that the park’s founder and CEO, Ken Bretschneider, has filed at least five lawsuits against him and the Evermore group through major construction companies, claiming that they have between $ 28,000 and $ 400,000 in construction, mechanical and and garden costs paid. Smaller subcontractors who worked on the park also reportedly filed more than 20 construction liens on the Evermore property, according to the story.
“The true intent of this case should be obvious,” a Swift spokesman said.
The lawsuit is aimed at Swift’s further use of the “Evermore” trademark and statutory damages of $ 2 million per “counterfeit brand per type of goods or services sold”, or a portion of the proceeds from the use of the trademark plus to avoid costs and fees.