By Azzam Bilal 
HangupsMusic.com – In the complex and often litigious world of intellectual property, the name an artist carries is more than just a label; it is a brand, a legacy, and a primary point of connection with a global audience. For Tahliah Barnett, the visionary British artist known to millions as FKA twigs, that name has become the center of a high-stakes legal battle. Barnett has officially filed a lawsuit against the 1990s-era alternative pop duo known as the Twigs, seeking to solidify her legal right to her stage name once and for all. The filing, which requests a jury trial, marks a significant escalation in a dispute that has simmered beneath the surface of the music industry for more than a decade.
The legal action follows what Barnett’s legal team describes as a persistent campaign of harassment by Laura and Linda Good, the twin sisters who comprise the original Twigs. According to the complaint, the Goods have issued numerous cease-and-desist letters over the years, challenging Barnett’s trademark and threatening her ability to operate under the FKA twigs moniker. The conflict reached a boiling point in May 2024, when the duo allegedly intensified their demands, seeking a substantial seven-figure settlement to release their claims. Barnett’s lawsuit characterizes these actions as an attempt to "weaponize" trademark law for financial gain, targeting her after a decade of uninterrupted success.
To understand the current friction, one must look back to 2013, when Tahliah Barnett was a burgeoning force in the London underground scene. At the time, she performed simply as "twigs," a nickname derived from the way her joints would pop and crack. As her profile began to rise internationally, she became aware of the Good sisters, who had formed their band in 1994. Recognizing the potential for overlap, Barnett reportedly reached out to the sisters in an act of professional courtesy. Records from the lawsuit indicate that she offered the duo $15,000 to allow both acts to co-exist in the marketplace. However, the sisters declined the offer, asserting that they did not consent to any arrangement that involved Barnett using the name "twigs."
The initial conflict resulted in a 2014 lawsuit filed by the Good sisters against Barnett. In an effort to resolve the matter and distance herself from the duo’s brand, Barnett made the creative and legal decision to append "FKA"—an acronym for "Formerly Known As"—to her name. This transition to FKA twigs was intended to be a definitive compromise, signaling to the industry and the public that she was a distinct entity from the pre-existing band. For a time, it appeared the strategy had worked, as Barnett’s career skyrocketed under the new moniker, leading to critical acclaim, fashion partnerships, and a series of groundbreaking albums.
However, the Good sisters were reportedly never satisfied with the addition of "FKA." The lawsuit notes that they viewed the change as insufficient, arguing that the core of the name remained too similar to their own and continued to cause confusion among consumers. Despite these objections, FKA twigs continued to build a global brand. For ten years, the name was used without legal interruption in the form of album releases, international tours, and high-profile marketing campaigns. The sudden resurgence of legal threats in 2024 has therefore been framed by Barnett’s attorneys as a "barred and unmeritorious" attempt to disrupt her business.
Central to Barnett’s argument is the concept of "commercial ecosystems." In trademark law, the likelihood of confusion is often measured by how much two brands actually overlap in the real world. Barnett’s legal team has presented a stark contrast in the digital footprints of the two artists to argue that no reasonable consumer could mistake one for the other. At the time of the filing, FKA twigs boasted approximately 3.2 million monthly listeners on Spotify and over 300 million views across her YouTube channel. In contrast, the Twigs were cited as having 25 monthly listeners on Spotify, 67 YouTube subscribers, and a social media following of just over 700 on Instagram.
By highlighting these numbers, Barnett is making the case that the two entities exist in entirely different spheres of the music industry. The original Twigs represent a niche, mid-90s project that has largely remained dormant, while FKA twigs is a contemporary powerhouse with a massive, active fan base. The lawsuit argues that the Goods’ claim of "confusion" is a legal fiction, as their brand has effectively "disappeared" from the public consciousness over the last decade, only to reappear when there was a financial opportunity to be seized.
The timing of the renewed legal pressure is particularly poignant. Barnett is currently navigating one of the most successful chapters of her career. Last November, she released EUSEXUA Afterglow, a companion project to her third studio album, EUSEXUA. The latter project was a massive critical success, landing a high spot on numerous "Best of 2025" lists and earning Barnett her first-ever Grammy Award for Best Dance/Electronic Album. During her acceptance speech, she spoke emotionally about her long journey in the industry, urging fellow artists to remain steadfast in their visions.
For Barnett, the name FKA twigs is inextricably linked to that vision. It represents her evolution from a backup dancer to a multidisciplinary auteur. The threat of an injunction—which the Good sisters have allegedly threatened—could have catastrophic consequences for her career. An injunction could potentially prevent her from selling merchandise, performing under her name, or even keeping her existing discography available on streaming platforms under the FKA twigs brand. By seeking a jury trial, Barnett is putting her fate in the hands of the public, betting that a jury will recognize the distinct identity she has carved out over the last decade.
The "seven-figure payout" allegedly demanded by the Good sisters is another point of contention highlighted in the lawsuit. Barnett’s team suggests that the duo is attempting to secure a windfall based on the success she achieved through her own hard work and innovation. The legal doctrine of "laches"—which prevents a party from bringing a claim if they have waited an unreasonable amount of time to do so, thereby prejudicing the defendant—is likely to play a major role in the upcoming proceedings. Barnett’s lawyers will likely argue that by waiting ten years to aggressively pursue these claims while Barnett spent millions building her brand, the Good sisters have forfeited their right to seek such drastic damages.
As the music industry watches closely, the case raises broader questions about trademark protections for artists. In an era where digital streaming makes every artist’s catalog available globally, name conflicts are becoming increasingly common. However, the "FKA" prefix has historically been a common solution for artists facing such disputes. If a jury finds that even "FKA twigs" is too close to "the Twigs," it could set a precedent that makes it much harder for new artists to resolve naming conflicts through simple modifications.
Currently, representatives for the Good sisters have not released a formal public statement regarding the specifics of Barnett’s lawsuit, though their past filings suggest they remain firm in their belief that their trademark has been infringed upon. Pitchfork and other major music outlets have reached out to both camps for comment, but the battle appears destined for the courtroom.
For Tahliah Barnett, the fight is about more than just a trademark registration; it is about the right to own her history. As she stated in her Grammy speech, her art is the result of a "really long time" of dedication. The lawsuit is a defensive move intended to ensure that the next decade of her career is not overshadowed by the ghosts of a naming dispute that she believed was settled years ago. Whether a jury will agree that the two "ecosystems" are truly separate remains to be seen, but for now, FKA twigs is standing her ground, refusing to let her identity be redefined by a legal challenge from the past.