Eminem Launches Legal Action Against Australian Beach Brand Swim Shady
Rapper alleges the brand’s name infringes his iconic Slim Shady trademark and has initiated petitions in both the US and Australia
American rapper Marshall B. Mathers III, widely known as Eminem, has taken legal steps against Australian beach-brand Swim Shady, arguing that its name is confusingly similar to his trademarked alter-ego Slim Shady.
The action comprises a petition filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to cancel Swim Shady’s recently granted US trademark and a formal opposition to the company’s Australian trademark registrations.
According to filings, Eminem’s team argues the Swim Shady mark conveys an unmistakable connection to the rapper’s brand, potentially misleading consumers into believing he endorses or is affiliated with the Sydney-based company.
Swim Shady, which launched in December 2024 and markets umbrellas, swim bags, towels and shorts, obtained US registration in late September before facing the challenge.
In Australia, Eminem held trademarks for “Shady” and “Shady Limited” but only applied for “Slim Shady” in January 2025. His legal team lodged opposition to Swim Shady’s Australian registration in October 2024 and is now engaged in parallel litigation in both countries.
The Australian company’s founders, Jeremy Scott and Elizabeth Afrakoff, have confirmed the dispute and indicated their intention to contest the claims, asserting they followed proper business and registration protocols in launching their brand.
Trademark observers note the case pits a globally recognised entertainer’s intellectual-property rights against a fledgling local enterprise operating in a distinct category of beach-leisure goods.
While Eminem asserts his brand identity stretches into apparel and related products, Swim Shady emphasises its focus on beach-shade equipment.
The outcome may hinge on whether the courts judge the products sufficiently close in the marketplace to cause consumer confusion.
The dispute surfaces amid a broader trend of high-profile musicians asserting control over global brand identities and fight infringing uses—even in seemingly distant categories.
Whatever the eventual resolution, the parties are headed for a legal showdown that underscores the reach and complexity of trademark protection in the digital and globalised age.
The action comprises a petition filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to cancel Swim Shady’s recently granted US trademark and a formal opposition to the company’s Australian trademark registrations.
According to filings, Eminem’s team argues the Swim Shady mark conveys an unmistakable connection to the rapper’s brand, potentially misleading consumers into believing he endorses or is affiliated with the Sydney-based company.
Swim Shady, which launched in December 2024 and markets umbrellas, swim bags, towels and shorts, obtained US registration in late September before facing the challenge.
In Australia, Eminem held trademarks for “Shady” and “Shady Limited” but only applied for “Slim Shady” in January 2025. His legal team lodged opposition to Swim Shady’s Australian registration in October 2024 and is now engaged in parallel litigation in both countries.
The Australian company’s founders, Jeremy Scott and Elizabeth Afrakoff, have confirmed the dispute and indicated their intention to contest the claims, asserting they followed proper business and registration protocols in launching their brand.
Trademark observers note the case pits a globally recognised entertainer’s intellectual-property rights against a fledgling local enterprise operating in a distinct category of beach-leisure goods.
While Eminem asserts his brand identity stretches into apparel and related products, Swim Shady emphasises its focus on beach-shade equipment.
The outcome may hinge on whether the courts judge the products sufficiently close in the marketplace to cause consumer confusion.
The dispute surfaces amid a broader trend of high-profile musicians asserting control over global brand identities and fight infringing uses—even in seemingly distant categories.
Whatever the eventual resolution, the parties are headed for a legal showdown that underscores the reach and complexity of trademark protection in the digital and globalised age.
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
