Taylor Swift expands voice trademark filings to the UK, EU, and Australia
Taylor Swift’s company, TAS Rights Management, has applied to trademark recordings of her voice in the UK, the European Union and Australia, extending filings first made in the US in April. The applications come amid concerns about AI-generated voice imitations and could give Swift another way to challenge uses that might confuse audiences, although the legal approach has not yet been tested in court.
The voice marks cover Swift saying “Hey, it’s Taylor” or “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift”; UK and EU filings also seek protection for a photograph of her performing with a pink guitar. Australia accepted its application on 12 October, starting a usual two-month opposition period, while the UK and EU applications remain under examination. The filings claim priority from 24 April 2026, the date of the US applications, which included Swift’s consent to trademark her likeness, including her voice and image.
- Swift’s company has filed voice trademark applications in three more regions.
- The Australian application has been accepted but can still be opposed.
- The legal reach of voice trademarks remains untested in court.
New here? Start with this
A trademark protects a sign that helps people identify the source of goods or services. It can cover words, images and sounds, but protection depends on what is registered and how the mark is used; it does not automatically give someone ownership of every use of their voice.
Taylor Swift’s company, TAS Rights Management, manages rights connected with her work. A voice recording can be copied or imitated with AI, potentially making it harder for listeners to tell whether a clip is genuine or authorised. Trademark filings may offer one route to challenge some uses, alongside other legal protections.
Trademark applications are assessed separately in each jurisdiction, and others may have a chance to oppose them. Whether a trademark over a celebrity’s voice can be used to challenge AI imitations has not yet been tested in court.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters could argue that registering recognisable voice recordings gives Swift a practical way to challenge AI imitations that mislead audiences or trade on her identity without consent. It may clarify control over commercial uses of her voice while adapting existing intellectual-property tools to a technology that can make convincing copies.
The case against
Critics could argue that trademark protection for short spoken phrases risks stretching a system intended to prevent confusion in commerce into broader control over how a voice may be imitated or referenced. Because this legal approach is untested, they may also worry that it could chill parody, commentary or other legitimate expression, and favour celebrities with the resources to secure and enforce such rights.