A Grammy-winning artist has become embroiled in a high-stakes trademark row with an indie duo bearing a remarkably alike name. FKA Twigs, the stage moniker of British artist Tahliah Barnett, is now defending against a countersuit from twin sisters Laura and Linda Good, who go by the Twigs. The court dispute escalated on Monday when the indie band filed their own trademark infringement claim, merely weeks after Barnett had taken action against them in March for reportedly issuing cease-and-desist letters threatening to block her use of the name she has used since 2013. The competing claims underscore an increasingly contentious dispute over rights to the “Twigs” designation within the music industry, with both parties pursuing injunctions and substantial financial compensation.
The Dispute Escalates
The friction between the parties escalated sharply when the Twigs reportedly started sending cease-and-desist letters in May 2024, per Barnett’s initial filing. The sisters allegedly made threats of litigation and sought to prevent Barnett from using her established stage name, which she has maintained consistently her ten-year professional tenure. Barnett’s legal team characterised these actions as an attempt to “weaponise” trademark claims for financial gain, implying the Twigs were using their legal standing to extract a substantial settlement rather than authentically safeguarding their brand interests.
Prior to the escalation, Barnett had tried a diplomatic resolution. In a recorded correspondence, the Grammy-winning artist reportedly suggested a deal providing the Good sisters £15,000 to enable their respective musical projects to exist without conflict without either party buying the trademark from the other. However, Laura and Linda Good declined the proposal completely, refusing to consent to any agreement that would allow Barnett’s continued use of the name. This dismissal created the conditions for the court battle that would follow, with both sides now pursuing court orders and significant compensation.
- Sisters demanded a seven-figure payout to release alleged claims
- Barnett offered £15,000 for peaceful coexistence arrangement
- The Good sisters declined the proposed settlement terms
- Cease-and-desist letters sent in May 2024
Barnett’s Original Assertions
When FKA Twigs lodged a legal claim in March 2026, Grammy-winning artist Tahliah Barnett alleged that the indie duo had been fully aware of her use of the stage name since 2013—over ten years before they took legal action. According to her complaint, the sisters’ sudden aggressive pursuit of trademark claims constituted a deliberate effort to leverage her commercial success and celebrity status for financial gain. Barnett argued that the Good sisters had ample opportunity to dispute her adoption of the name during the elapsed period, making their delayed court action appear opportunistic rather than genuinely protective of their brand interests.
The heart of Barnett’s allegations revolves around what she described as an abuse of the trademark framework. She asserted the Twigs weaponised baseless and unmeritorious trademark applications specifically designed to disrupt her decade-long, uninterrupted use of the FKA Twigs mark. By serving cease-and-desist notices in May 2024 that signalled injunctions and court proceedings, Barnett contended the sisters were trying to exploit their legal position to obtain a considerable financial sum—purportedly requesting a seven-figure payout—rather than actually attempting to protect their own musical identity or commercial interests in the commercial sphere.
The 2013 Connection
Barnett’s counsel emphasised that the artist had been consistently using the FKA Twigs performance name from 2013 onwards, establishing a significant history of use, widespread acknowledgement, and market expansion under that moniker. This extended period of use formed a crucial pillar of her defence, indicating that any valid brand assertion would have been contested far before. The sisters’ inability to contest her use during the span of thirteen years weakened their position considerably and indicated their lawsuit was driven by Barnett’s subsequent rise to prominence and Grammy achievements rather than genuine brand protection concerns.
The Sisters’ Counter-argument
In their countersuit submitted on 11 May, sister twins Laura and Linda Good laid out a markedly contrasting account of what happened. They alleged that Barnett had intentionally leveraged her public profile and press reach to undermine their brand protections and reputation in the name “Twigs.” According to their complaint, the situation intensified considerably after Barnett released her album Magdalene in 2019, when the artist began strategically dropping the “FKA” prefix during public appearances. The Good sisters argued this represented an deliberate strategy to increase public association between Barnett and “Twigs” alone, thereby weakening their own brand identity and commercial position in the music business.
The indie duo’s legal strategy focused on establishing that Barnett’s behaviour amounted to trademark infringement and unfair trading practices. They contended that her celebrity status and consequent power with the media allowed her to act in ways deliberately intended to overwhelm their goodwill and market position. By advancing this robust counter-claim, the sisters aimed not merely to defend their current trademark protections but to demonstrate that Barnett’s subsequent prominence had substantially changed the commercial landscape, making their trademark ever more challenging to differentiate and protect in their own musical channels of commerce.
- Sought court order preventing Barnett from using “FKA Twigs” stage name in full
- Pursuing undetermined monetary compensation for trademark infringement and unfair business practice claims
- Asserted Barnett deliberately eliminated “FKA” designation to reinforce personal brand association
Legal Implications and Sector Effects
This intellectual property conflict carries significant ramifications that extend far beyond the direct parties concerned, addressing fundamental questions of artistic identity and commercial rights in the modern music industry. The case demonstrates a significant conflict between an recognised performer’s entitlement to protect her stage name and an independent band’s valid trademark rights. Courts will need to carefully weigh whether Barnett’s thirteen-year unchallenged use of “FKA Twigs” constitutes sufficient grounds for intellectual property safeguards, or whether the Good sisters’ prior registration provides them with enforceable rights regardless of subsequent delay in enforcement. The outcome could reshape how performers approach professional name conflicts and establish precedent for similar conflicts between established and emerging performers.
The far-reaching implications for the music industry are considerable, particularly concerning how artists establish their personal brands and the protections afforded to those who establish them early. If the court rules for the Twigs, it may deter established artists from adopting variations of stage names or eliminating prefixes, fearing legal challenges from trademark holders. Conversely, a ruling backing Barnett could prompt artists to actively commercialise stage names with scant regard for prior claims, potentially compromising trademark protections altogether. Industry observers note this case could influence how record labels, management companies, and artists themselves approach the selection of stage names and usage strategies in the future.
What You Stand to Lose
Beyond the substantial financial damages and potential court orders, this disagreement presents important issues about intellectual property protection, creative freedom, and fair business practices. The case will probably establish whether priority in trademark registration definitively overrides years of established public association and commercial success. For Barnett, the stakes include her capacity to keep performing under the name that defined her Grammy-winning career. For the Good sisters, the outcome will determine whether their prior trademark registration offers substantive legal recourse or remains largely symbolic. The decision will inevitably influence how upcoming disagreements between established and emerging artists are contested in court.