Not only did Swift use “Evermore” to promote his own merchandise, the park claims that since Swift released his album ever created a “real mess” around its own brand. Visitors asked employees if the album “was the result of a collaboration between Evermore and Taylor Swift or some other type of relationship,” the suit said. And on the day of ever release of the album (December 10), the park says that traffic on its website increased by 330.4% compared to traffic from the previous day.
Although it may be thought that it is a good thing for the park, the fact also addresses it. When Swift’s lawyer responded to a cease and desist letter sent by the park on December 29, the lawsuit states that they claimed: “In fact, traffic to your client’s website has increased as a result of the release of Ms. Swift which, in turn, could only serve to enhance your client’s brand. ”
For this idea that the park is “receiving a benefit from the promotion of its trademark by the Defendant”, the park says that Swift’s team shows a “misunderstanding of trademark law”. To support this, the action quotes Audi v. D’Amato (2004), who states: “The Court considers that the loss suffered by a trademark owner due to the unauthorized use of its marks is the loss of the trademark owner’s ability to control his reputation. In the context of trademark litigation the reasons for irreparable damage include loss of reputation control, loss of trade and loss of reputation, regardless of whether the offender is putting the mark to good or favorable use. “
Since the theme park’s trademark specifically covers “live visual and audio performances of an actor”, the process will certainly identify Swift as an “actor”, citing his performance in the “willow” video and other film and TV credits .
The suit also cites two original musical scores that the park ordered under the trademark “Evermore” and sells and broadcasts online, claiming that Swift’s album made these releases more difficult to find. And he points to Swift’s “willow” music video, in which she emerges from a hole in a tree, saying that it mimics the art of the albums the park has released.
“Despite her publicly stated concerns for small and struggling artists who face bigger and better-funded opponents,” says the suit, “Ms. Swift now seeks to bury Evermore’s previously released and created Evermore albums and misappropriate the trademark. EVERMORE without compensation to Evermore because the company is facing ‘financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic’ and cannot afford to be involved in protracted litigation. “
Swift’s team responded to the lawsuit, calling him “frivolous” in a statement to Advertising panel. He cited one Utah Business report stating that park founder and CEO Ken Bretschneider has had at least five lawsuits filed against him and the Evermore group by major construction companies, claiming that they owe between $ 28,000 and $ 400,000 in construction, mechanics and landscaping fees. Minor subcontractors who worked at the park also filed more than 20 construction liens on the Evermore property, according to the story.
“The real intent of this process should be obvious,” said a Swift spokesman.
The lawsuit seeks to prevent Swift’s future use of the “Evermore” trademark and legal damages of $ 2 million for “counterfeit trademark by type of product or service sold” or a portion of the proceeds from the use of the trademark plus costs and fees.