Eminem doesn’t take Ls often, but he’s just lost a trademark legal fight against Sydney-based beach brand Swim Shady. The Australian Registrar of Trade Marks has ruled in favour of beach brand Swim Shady, stripping the rapper’s “Shady” trademarks of clothing and merchandise protections. In one of the year’s most shocking IP beatdowns, a small startup just flipped the script on one of hip-hop’s most legally aggressive artists.
The dispute centres on Swim Shady, a business launched in 2024 by Northern Beaches entrepreneurs Jeremy Scott and Elizabeth Afrakoff, with the company selling beach merchandise including towels, beach shades, swim bags and swim shorts and expanding through more than 50 independent retailers and surf shops around Australia. When the beachwear startup began moving product in December 2024, Eminem’s legal team came swinging—claiming the name Swim Shady was “confusingly similar” to his well-known persona. The rapper, whose real name is Marshall Mathers III, had built a global empire around the Slim Shady moniker since the late ’90s. His net worth exceeds $400 million. Winning trademark disputes is something he’s done before. So nobody expected this.
But adjudicator Benjamin Goldsworthy found that Eminem had not used those marks in Australia across categories, including clothing, footwear, bags, and leather goods during the relevant period. The evidence Eminem’s team submitted—tour merchandise, website sales, social media posts—fell apart under scrutiny. Evidence showed that there had been only three recent sales of “Shady” merch to customers in Australia during that period. Three sales. For a guy who’s sold over 200 million albums worldwide.
The timing issue is where this gets brutal. While Eminem has been publicly associated with the Slim Shady persona for decades, “Slim Shady” itself was not registered as an Australian trademark until January 2025, after Swim Shady had already launched its business. That’s the gap. That’s the whole lawsuit. Eminem moved slow in Australia—maybe because he was focused on the US market, maybe because Australia wasn’t a priority. But trademark law doesn’t care about your reasons. It cares about use and control. And Goldsworthy also determined there was insufficient evidence that Eminem exercised “actual control” over the sale of the merchandise in Australia. His record label processed those three sales, not Eminem himself. Not good enough.
The “Shady” name was generally used in conjunction with broader Eminem branding and references to Slim Shady, rather than functioning as a standalone product brand in the Australian market. Think about that: the judge basically said you can’t sue somebody for stealing your name if you never actually used it as a brand name. It’s pure IP law logic, but it’s cold as hell when it’s Eminem on the losing end.
The trademarks will lose coverage for clothing, footwear, headgear, bags, and leather goods from August 1st, though Eminem retains “Shady” for other categories including music and electronics. He’s also been ordered to cover Swim Shady’s legal costs. That’s the sting—not just losing the merchandise marks, but paying the other side’s lawyers. Eminem’s team has until July 22nd to appeal. Swim Shady co-founders Jeremy Scott and Elizabeth Afrakoff welcomed the outcome. “Elizabeth and I are delighted with today’s decision,” Scott said in a statement. “We’re grateful for the careful consideration the Delegate has given to the evidence and are extremely pleased with the outcome.”
This is far from over. Eminem is also challenging Swim Shady trademark applications in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. The Australia ruling will echo in those jurisdictions—trademark decisions in one country often influence others. But Australia just set a precedent: fame and deep pockets don’t automatically win IP fights. You actually have to use your trademarks in the categories you’re protecting.
For context, last year, the rapper sued Meta for alleged unauthorised use of his music across its platforms, as well as a Detroit Ford dealership for using ‘Lose Yourself’ in online adverts without permission. Back in 2017, his publishers also won a copyright case against New Zealand’s National Party after it used a soundalike version of ‘Lose Yourself’ in an election campaign advert. Eminem doesn’t back down from legal fights. He’s usually the one winning them. This loss stings differently because it wasn’t about someone stealing his work—it was about him failing to claim his own territory before somebody else did.
The 16BARS take: Eminem’s IP defense game is normally undefeated, but you can’t sue over a trademark if you’re basically not using it. Australia just reminded the culture that intellectual property law doesn’t care how many albums you sold—it cares about commerce. And Swim Shady just became a case study in how to David a Goliath in the trademark world.
