- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- with Inhouse Counsel
- in Australia
- with readers working within the Banking & Credit and Law Firm industries
Eminem (Marshall B. Mathers III) has suffered a setback in his dispute with Sydney-based beach lifestyle brand Swim Shady following a ruling by Australia’s Registrar of Trade Marks.
Slim vs Swim – a shady dispute
Swim Shady, a business based on Sydney’s Northern Beaches, filed its SWIM SHADY trade mark in Australia for a range of beach-related products, including portable beach umbrellas, swim bags and other accessories. The brand subsequently launched commercially and has since sought trade mark protection in several overseas jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan.
Mathers has opposed Swim Shady’s trade mark applications internationally, including filing proceedings in the United States. His legal team argued that SWIM SHADY is confusingly similar to his well-known Slim Shady persona and could lead consumers to believe there is an association between the parties.
The decision
A key issue before the Registrar was whether Mathers had genuinely used his existing Australian trade marks SHADY and SHADY LIMITED in relation to a number of merchandise categories. While those registrations have existed in Australia for many years, the Registrar found insufficient evidence of genuine use in categories including clothing, footwear, headwear, bags and leather goods during the relevant period.
The decision also noted that, although Mathers has been publicly associated with the Slim Shady persona for decades, an Australian application for SLIM SHADY was not filed until January 2025, significantly later than the relevant Swim Shady activities.
As a result, the registrations for SHADY and SHADY LIMITED will lose protection in several merchandise-related categories from 1 August 2026, although rights remain in other classes, including music and electronics.
The dispute is unlikely to end here. Mathers has until 22 July 2026 to appeal the Australian decision and continues to challenge Swim Shady’s trade mark applications in the UK, US and Japan.
Key takeaways
The decision demonstrates that public recognition of a name or persona does not automatically translate into broad trade mark protection. Trade mark owners should ensure they file strategically, maintain registrations in relevant territories and, critically, retain evidence demonstrating genuine use of their marks for the goods and services claimed.
Read more from our award-winning trade mark team here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]