iWorld
X’s global marketing head Angela Zepeda steps down
Former Hyundai CMO steps down from Elon Musk’s platform
LOS ANGELES: Angela Zepeda has stepped down as head of global marketing at X, bringing her 18-month stint at the social media platform to a close.
The development, which was not formally announced by the company, has surfaced through updates to Zepeda’s LinkedIn profile, indicating that she exited the role in February 2026. Her departure comes at a time when X continues to evolve its brand identity and advertiser relationships following its high-profile rebranding.
Zepeda joined X in September 2024, tasked with shaping global marketing strategy and strengthening the platform’s appeal to brands. Her tenure coincided with a period of transition, as the company worked to redefine its positioning in a competitive and often turbulent social media landscape.
Prior to her role at X, Zepeda held senior leadership positions at Hyundai Motor America, where she served as chief marketing officer for nearly five years. She briefly took on the role of chief creative officer before moving on, marking a notable chapter in her corporate career.
Her résumé spans decades across advertising and marketing, including leadership roles at INNOCEAN USA, where she served as senior vice president and managing director, as well as stints at Quigley-Simpson and Lowe Campbell Ewald. Over the years, she has built a reputation for steering brand strategy and driving business growth across industries.
Neither Zepeda nor X has publicly commented on the move, and her next step remains unclear. Still, her exit adds another twist to the ongoing narrative at X, where leadership shifts have become almost as frequent as timeline refreshes.
iWorld
Taylor Swift sued by Maren Wade over Showgirl trademark clash
Las Vegas performer claims hit album branding overshadows her long-held identity
MUMBAI: A high-profile trademark dispute is brewing in the entertainment world as Las Vegas performer Maren Wade has filed a lawsuit against global pop star Taylor Swift over the title of her latest album.
Filed on March 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the suit accuses Swift and UMG Recordings of trademark infringement, false designation and unfair competition. At the centre of the dispute is Swift’s chart-topping album The Life of a Showgirl, released in October 2025.
Wade argues that the album’s title and branding are confusingly similar to her long-established trademark Confessions of a Showgirl, which she has built since 2014. What began as a column in Las Vegas Weekly has since expanded into a touring stage show, podcast and book, with a federal trademark secured in 2015.
The complaint leans heavily on the concept of reverse confusion. Wade claims Swift’s global popularity has effectively drowned out her brand, leaving audiences to assume she is imitating the singer rather than the other way around. The lawsuit cites instances of fans using Wade’s trademarked phrase in connection with Swift’s album and search results increasingly pointing to Swift-related content.
A key element of the case involves the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which had already raised concerns. According to the filing, the office issued a partial refusal of Swift’s trademark application in late 2025, citing a likelihood of confusion due to shared phrasing and overlapping entertainment categories.
“They did not do so quietly,” the complaint notes, referring to the album’s rollout, which quickly extended into merchandise, labels and retail branding aimed at a similar audience.
Wade is seeking a permanent injunction to stop further use of the title, along with a share of profits, damages and legal costs. The stakes are high given the album’s commercial success, with over four million units sold in its first week in the United States alone.
Taylor Swift, known for her expansive intellectual property portfolio, operates through entities such as TAS Rights Management and Bravado, which manage her trademarks and global merchandising operations.
The outcome could hinge on whether the court sees the similarity as coincidence or confusion. For now, the case sets the stage for a legal showdown that may determine who truly owns the spotlight in the “showgirl” story.
