Rap legend targets Sydney-based beachwear startup
Eminem, the global rap icon born Marshall B. Mathers III and widely known by his alter-ego “Slim Shady”, has launched legal action against Sydney-based beachwear company Swim Shady. The rapper’s team argues the brand’s name infringes his trademark rights and may mislead consumers about his endorsement. According to Australian media, the company was founded by former NRL executive Jeremy Scott and his partner Elizabeth Afrakoff, and launched in December 2024 with swimwear, beach accessories and sun-protection products.
What’s being claimed – and by whom
Eminem’s legal petition, filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), seeks cancellation of Swim Shady’s U.S. trademark, granted in September. The petition claims the name is dangerously close to “Slim Shady” and could cause public confusion. In Australia, Eminem’s team has challenged the swim brand’s use of “Shady” and similar marks. Until recently, Eminem already held registered trademarks in Australia for “Shady” and “Shady Limited”; he only filed for “Slim Shady” domestically in January 2025 — after Swim Shady’s launch. Swim Shady, for its part, has responded by lodging non-use claims against Eminem’s older Australian trademarks, arguing they haven’t been actively used. The brand says it will “vigorously defend” its name, asserting its root purpose is entirely unrelated to the rapper — focused solely on sun-protection and beach culture.
Why this matters
Trademark experts say that high-profile figures like Eminem often need to actively protect their marks globally — failing to do so can weaken rights. By targeting Swim Shady, it highlights how branding in the digital age can cross boundaries of geography, media and culture. For Swim Shady, despite their claim of starting as a local, grassroots brand, the legal challenge raises questions about brand naming, international reach and how smaller companies navigate trademark risks in a globally connected market. For Australian businesses in particular, the case serves as a warning: even if you’re operating locally, if your brand name bears resemblance to an internationally recognised mark, you may face friction.
What happens next
The dispute is still unfolding. Eminem’s petition against the U.S. trademark will be reviewed by the USPTO. Meanwhile in Australia, both sides are gearing up for potentially protracted legal or administrative proceedings. Swim Shady has confirmed the matter is before the courts and has refrained from further comment.
Observers will be watching three key questions:
- Will Swim Shady be forced to rebrand or alter its use of the name?
- How will the Australian courts (or trademark office) interpret the overlap between “Shady”, “Slim Shady” and Swim Shady in the context of consumer confusion?
- What precedent might this set for local brands using slang, cultural references or near-celebrity wordplay in their names?
It’s a curious clash of worlds: on one hand, a beach-wear startup trying to carve out a cultural niche; on the other, a rap superstar defending a two-decade-old alter-ego as a business asset. Whatever the outcome, the case shows that in 2025 even surf brands aren’t immune to the long-arm of global celebrity trademarks.
