FKA Twigs built a global music career around a name that was meant to separate her from an older act. The counterclaims now pending in federal court show the harder lesson: a modified name can still carry the old conflict with it, and fame can make that conflict larger instead of easier to solve.
The Fight Over FKA Twigs Just Got More Serious
The case is Tahliah Barnett p/k/a FKA Twigs v. The Laura Good, Linda Good Partnership, Linda Good, and Laura Good, pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York under case number 1:26-cv-02331-JSR. Barnett filed first on March 20, 2026, asking the court to declare that her use and registration of FKA TWIGS does not infringe the defendants’ trademark rights.
The Laura Good, Linda Good Partnership, Linda Good, and Laura Good perform as The Twigs. On May 11, 2026, they filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and May 11, 2026 counterclaims. They now ask the court to stop Barnett from using FKA Twigs, Twigs, or confusingly similar names for live or recorded musical performances and related goods and services. They also ask for an order directing the USPTO to refuse Barnett’s pending FKA TWIGS application.
Barnett says the fight should have ended long ago. Her complaint says The Twigs knew about her use since at least 2013, filed a California federal suit in 2014, lost a bid for emergency relief, voluntarily dismissed that case, and then waited roughly ten years before renewing the dispute. The Twigs frame that same history differently. They say Barnett knew about their older rights, discussed coexistence, and then built a career around a name that remained too close to theirs.
The court has not decided who is right. That uncertainty is the point. One side sees delay, coexistence, and different markets. The other sees priority, registrations, and reverse confusion. The name is now valuable enough that neither side can treat the old conflict as a small problem.
Why Priority Still Matters When The Junior User Is Famous
The Twigs’ counterclaims rely on two federal registrations that TTABVUE lists as registered and renewed. Registration No. 2,003,136 covers THE TWIGS for live musical performance services in Class 41. Registration No. 4,683,985 covers THE TWIGS for recorded music and related goods in Class 9.
Barnett’s FKA TWIGS application, Serial No. 98/325,539, was filed on December 21, 2023 and published for opposition on June 24, 2025. The Twigs filed TTAB Opposition No. 91303922 on December 19, 2025, and TTABVUE shows proceedings resumed on February 18, 2026. By the time Barnett filed in federal court, the registration fight was already active.
The overlap is easy to see. Both sides are music acts. Both names turn on Twigs. Trademark law does not award the name to the artist with the bigger audience by default. If an older user has priority for related services, the later user’s fame can become part of the problem.
That is the theory behind reverse confusion. In ordinary forward confusion, the junior user is accused of trading on the senior user’s reputation. Reverse confusion flips the direction. The senior user argues that the junior user’s market presence is so large that consumers may assume the senior user is connected to, copying, or riding the larger brand.
The Twigs allege that Barnett’s fame, music-industry backing, use of Twigs without the FKA prefix, and public references to AI Twigs created that kind of reverse confusion. Barnett disputes the premise. She argues that The Twigs knew about her use for years, that the parties coexisted, that their audiences and commercial settings differ, and that confusion is not plausible.
For a filing strategy, the case is a reminder to check older registrations and common-law uses before the public rollout hardens. When I review a name for clearance, I also look at whether how the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board process can shape a filing fight could block registration even if the client is already using the mark.
Artist Names Carry More Than A Performance Credit
A stage name is not only a line on a concert poster. It becomes the label for recordings, streaming profiles, ticket sales, merchandise, interviews, social media, licensing, endorsements, and search results. Once the public attaches all of that activity to one identifier, the name starts doing trademark work every day.
That is why the FKA prefix matters, but not in a simple way. A prefix can help separate two marks if the market consistently sees and uses it. It can signal that the newer artist is not the older act. It does not erase the shared term, and it does not make the earlier trademark problem disappear.
The Twigs point to Barnett’s alleged use of Twigs without the FKA prefix, including an April 30, 2024 appearance before a US Senate subcommittee behind a nameplate reading Twigs and references to AI Twigs. Those are allegations, not court findings. They still show why actual marketplace use matters more than the cleanest version of a mark on an application form.
An artist name can also spread into places the artist never planned at the start. The same name can show up in congressional testimony, technology discussions, merchandise drops, collaborations, fan accounts, and media shorthand. Each new setting gives the public another way to understand the name and another reason for an older rights holder to object.
When I advise on filing a stage name as a protectable mark, I focus on the real commercial footprint. The application should match how the name is used now and where the artist is likely to take it next. A filing that ignores recordings, live performances, apparel, digital content, or public shorthand can leave gaps when the dispute finally arrives.
The Preventive Lesson Is To Clear The Name Before It Becomes Expensive
The 2013 emails are the practical hinge in this case. The Twigs allege Barnett contacted them on June 5, 2013 after discovering they had performed as The Twigs longer. The parties discussed coexistence. The Twigs say Barnett offered $15,000 for an agreement. No signed deal followed, and Barnett began using FKA Twigs professionally later that year.
That was the moment when the conflict was still small enough to manage. A clearance review could have identified the registrations, the related services, the risk around the shared word, and the available paths: rename, negotiate written coexistence, use a stronger modifier, or proceed with a clear record of accepted risk.
Informal coexistence is weaker than a signed agreement with rules. A useful agreement should define the names each side may use, required prefixes or modifiers, territories, classes of goods and services, billing for live performances, recording credits, merchandise, social handles, and future expansion. Without those terms, each side can later argue that the other exceeded the understanding or that no binding understanding existed.
The alleged $15,000 offer also shows how timing changes leverage. If that figure is accurate, it represents what resolution looked like near the beginning of Barnett’s public career. The dispute now involves federal counterclaims, a TTAB opposition, a reported seven-figure demand, and a name attached to years of music, press, and public recognition.
The practical step is not complicated. A targeted trademark search before launch can reveal whether an older act, an old registration, or an unregistered common-law user already occupies the space you plan to enter. Finding that risk early gives you choices. Finding it after the name is famous gives you leverage problems.
Do Not Let A Name Dispute Write Your Rebrand
The FKA Twigs dispute has not been decided. Barnett’s defenses depend on facts about delay, knowledge, reliance, and the parties’ conduct between 2013 and 2026. The Twigs’ counterclaims depend on priority, overlap, reverse confusion, and the strength of their claimed rights. A judge will have to sort that record before anyone can say what happens to the name.
What is already visible is the cost of leaving a known conflict unresolved. Barnett has used FKA Twigs for more than a decade. The name is tied to recordings, touring, press, public appearances, and a public identity. The Twigs are asking a federal court to declare that use infringing and permanently stop it. That request may or may not succeed, but its existence is enough to show why name clearance should happen before the brand becomes hard to unwind.
In my practice, I help clients reduce that risk before it hardens. That means clearance searches, risk analysis, filing-class planning, specimen strategy, coexistence review, and responses to oppositions or cease-and-desist letters. If you are launching a new artist name, brand, or product and want to know whether your chosen identifier is clear, contact my office for a consultation.
