Adult film actress Lexi Love sues RuPaul's Drag Race contestant over trademark

Background

From Barnes v. Scola, decided Thursday by Judge Richard Seeborg (N.D. Cal.):

Selena Scola is an actress, entertainer, and influencer. Scola began performing under the name Lexi Love in 2004 in adult films. Between 2004 and 2010, she starred in over 600 such films. During this time, she also:

• Worked as a featured dancer at night clubs across the country
• Was hired to help promote companies at industry expositions
• Appeared at red carpet events, award shows, and conventions
• Guest-starred on radio talk shows

In 2009, Scola became an advocate for safe sex in the adult entertainment industry and began speaking out about conditions under which she would not work on an adult film.

In 2010, Scola shifted from acting in adult films. She worked as a consultant on adult films and continued to attend industry events and appear on radio shows, but began expanding her work—again under the name Lexi Love—into:

• Independent films
• Television shows
• Commercials
• Video games
• Music videos
• Musical recordings and tours
• Film and podcast production
• Other entertainment and influencer roles

Scola also grew and maintained a strong, monetized social media presence. She holds U.S. Trademark Registration No. 7,727,806 for LEXI LOVE in International Class 41, covering talent agency and management services, as well as entertainment performance services.

The Defendant

Cody Barnes is a professional drag performer who alleges she began using the name Lexi Love in 2009. Barnes also performed under the names Alexstacy Love, Lexi DVV Love, and Lexi V. Love—the latter of which she used as recently as 2021.

In 2025, Barnes' fame grew with her participation in Season 17 of the popular show RuPaul's Drag Race. Barnes' casting was announced in December 2024, and the season aired between January and April 2025. Barnes, as Lexi Love, appeared in every episode. WOW produced Season 17, and Paramount aired it on MTV.

Trademark Dispute

In December 2024, with the announcement of Barnes' participation in RuPaul's Drag Race, Scola learned of Barnes' use of the name and contacted Paramount's MTV and Barnes to inform them of her trademark rights. Yet, Barnes' use of the name continued.

In August 2025, Scola sent cease and desist letters to Paramount, WOW, and Barnes. Barnes again continued to use the name and encouraged her fans to do the same, and Paramount and WOW continued to post content featuring Barnes as Lexi Love.

Throughout this time, Scola sent takedown requests to social media platforms and third parties regarding Barnes' use of the LEXI LOVE mark.

Impact on Scola

Barnes' fame has diluted Scola's online presence. Scola has been:

• Tagged repeatedly on social media by users intending to tag Barnes
• Affected by searches for Lexi Love that return content about Barnes
• Lost business opportunities as a result of Barnes' fame

Scola has sent numerous takedown requests regarding Barnes' content and accounts using the Lexi Love name.

Court Ruling

Litigation ensued. Scola claimed that Barnes infringed her trademark, and the court allowed the claim to go forward.

The motion to dismiss by Paramount and WOW turns entirely on whether Scola's claims for contributory trademark infringement and unfair competition are foreclosed by the First Amendment protection afforded under the Rogers test.

The Rogers test was first articulated by the Second Circuit in Rogers v. Grimaldi (2d Cir. 1989) and seeks to balance trademark protection with free expression. It is possible for "expressive works [to] reference a celebrity [or other trademark] 'without any overt indication of authorship or endorsement.'" A reference to a mark may serve as a "prop or background element." For example, the song titled "Bette Davis Eyes" references Bette Davis, but "the celebrity is not overtly identified as the source or sponsor of the work."

In such cases, when the challenged mark is used "'solely to perform some other expressive function,'" and "'not to designate a work's source,'" the First Amendment protects against Lanham Act liability—in other words, the Rogers test must be applied.

On the other hand, "when a challenged trademark use functions as source-identifying," there is no conflict between First Amendment and Lanham Act rights, and "the likelihood-of-confusion inquiry does enough work to account for the interest in free expression." "Nor does that result change because the use of a mark has other expressive content."

In Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (2023), the Supreme Court considered whether Rogers protection should apply in a suit for trademark infringement brought by Jack Daniel's against a dog-toy manufacturer.