Taylor Swift is trying to trademark her voice outside the United States. Her company has filed to register a recording of her saying "Hey, it's Taylor Swift" in the United Kingdom, the European Union and Australia, extending a strategy that lawyers see as a new way to fight AI deepfakes.
The filings, reported by Music Business Worldwide from trademark office records, build on three US applications Swift's company made in April.
Quick facts
- Who filed: TAS Rights Management, LLC, the company that handles Swift's trademarks
- What: a sound mark of her saying "Hey, it's Taylor Swift," and in the UK and EU an image mark of a stage photo of her holding a pink guitar
- When: October 6 and 7, 2026
- Status: Accepted in Australia on October 12, now in a two-month opposition window; under examination in the UK and EU
- Category: Class 41, music and entertainment services (in Australia and the EU)
- Tested in court? No, and lawyers say that's the open question
What exactly did Taylor Swift file?
In April 2026, TAS Rights Management filed three applications with the US Patent and Trademark Office: two audio recordings of Swift saying "Hey, it's Taylor Swift" and "Hey, it's Taylor," and a photo of her on stage with a pink guitar. The filings came with Swift's signed consent to register her likeness, including her voice and image, as a trademark in the US and abroad.
The October filings take the same idea overseas:
| Where | Filed | What | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Oct 6–7, 2026 | Sound mark + image mark | Under examination |
| European Union (EUIPO) | Oct 6–7, 2026 | Sound mark + image mark | Under examination |
| Australia | Oct 6, 2026 | Sound mark | Accepted Oct 12; opposition period |
The UK and Australian filings claim the April 24 US filing date as their priority date, which international trademark rules allow within six months of a first application.
Can you trademark your voice?
You can apply to register a sound as a trademark; jingles and sound logos have been registered for years. What's new is a performer registering a short clip of their own speaking voice with deepfakes in mind.
Josh Gerben of Gerben IP, the trademark lawyer who first spotted Swift's US filings, called it "a new use of trademark registration that has not been tested in court before." His view is that if an AI tool produced a voice resembling the registered mark, Swift could argue it infringed her trademark rights.
He told CBS News a voice can be copied and spread widely, and the copy doesn't have to be exact to cause harm, while noting that existing trademark law was written before today's AI tools.
What a voice trademark can't do
It doesn't give Swift ownership of the words. Anyone can still say "Hey, it's Taylor Swift." A trademark protects a sign that identifies a source of goods or services, so its natural target is commercial use: a fake ad, a fake endorsement, or AI audio passed off as coming from her.
It also isn't the only tool. In the US, people are already protected by state right of publicity laws, and Tennessee's ELVIS Act, passed in 2024, specifically protects musicians' voices from unauthorized AI imitation. The trademark route adds a registration-based layer that works the same way in every country where a mark is granted, including places like the UK that have no direct equivalent of US publicity rights.
This is general information, not legal advice.
Why Taylor Swift, and why now?
Swift has been one of the most prominent targets of AI fakery. In January 2024, sexually explicit AI-generated images of her spread on X, which temporarily blocked searches for her name. In September 2024, she said AI-generated images falsely showing her endorsing a presidential candidate "conjured up my fears around AI" when she announced her own endorsement.
Swift has not commented on the trademark filings. The music industry, meanwhile, is in a wider fight over AI, from voice clones to lawsuits over training data like Sony Music's case against Udio.
What happened to the NO FAKES Act?
The bill most likely to give performers federal protection is stuck. The NO FAKES Act, from Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Chris Coons, would make it unlawful to distribute unauthorized digital replicas of someone's voice or likeness, with exceptions for protected speech. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously on June 18.
On September 30, Sen. Ted Cruz objected when Blackburn tried to pass it by unanimous consent, and it is now stalled until at least November while lawmakers negotiate free-speech protections.
Until something passes, trademark filings like Swift's are one of the few tools celebrities can use now.
She's not the only one
- Matthew McConaughey has filed to protect "Alright, alright, alright."
- Lionel Richie filed four US applications in June, each for audio of him saying a line from one of his songs.
- The Backstreet Boys filed for "Hi, we're the Backstreet Boys."
- Giorgia Meloni, Italy's prime minister, filed a similar EU application a day before Swift, according to Spain's EFE news agency.
What to watch
Opposition in Australia. Anyone who objects has two months to say so before the mark is registered.
The UK and EU examiners. Whether they accept a spoken-voice clip as a valid mark will set an early precedent.
The first lawsuit. None of these marks has been enforced against an AI deepfake yet. The first case will show whether the strategy works.
Published Sunday, October 18, 2026. Filing details are from trademark office records as reported by Music Business Worldwide, CBS News and Parade/EFE. Swift and her representatives have not commented on the filings.
