HAVEN VS. HAVEN Where artist’s names clash over similarity
This blog explores a 2024 case on how similar artist stage names can be found in determining trademark infringement and how that reasoning may apply to a recent social media dispute.
The viral TikTok hit, “I Run,” began with controversy.
The song was initially teased on TikTok under the name HAVEN., and became an instant viral hit, racking over a million views. Ashely King, HAVEN.’s ‘I Run’ Explained: How an AI-Generated Track Took Over TikTok, Got Banned from Streaming Platforms, Then Started All Over, Digit. Music News (Nov. 24, 2025) https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2025/11/24/havens-i-run-ai-song-explained/. The song was released in October 2025 and drew criticism when allegations surfaced that the main vocals were generated by AI trained on Jorja Smith’s vocals. Seeid. The track was then removed on all streaming services, including Spotify and Apple music, after takedown notices were issued to HAVEN. for “misrepresentation” and copyright infringement. Id. A month later, HAVEN. released a re-recording of the song. Id. This time, featuring the vocals of Kaitlin Argon, a human singer. Although the initial AI controversy was not forgotten, the song’s popularity has not ceased. The re-released version currently has over 112 million streams on Spotify. HAVEN., Kaitlin Argon, I Run on I Run [Single](Spotify, Isekai / broke / AAO, Nov. 21, 2025).
Yet, HAVEN. has not escaped controversy. In an Instagram video posted on November 28, 2025, a small artist alleges that the TikTok sensation stole her artist name “HAVEN,” changing it by only adding a period to the name. Video posted by @iamhavenmusic, Instagram, (Nov. 28, 2025), https://shorturl.at/XX8f8. Despite releasing music using her own vocals for years before the “I Run,” the artist speaks about being bombarded with accusations of using AI after people mistook her for HAVEN. Id. She further juxtaposed two screenshots showing “HAVEN.” on Spotify with her own artist name as “HAVEN,” to exemplify the similarity between the two names, and ended the video by releasing her own version of the “I Run” song. Id. This Instagram video received less notice, with currently only 55K views on Instagram. Id. However, this brings to the question, how legally similar can stage names be?
This question was answered by a recent 2024 federal district court in California. See Cash v. Interscope Geffen A & M Recs., No 2:22-cv-01900-ODW (MAAx), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129142, at *1, *13–*20 (D. Cal. July 22, 2024). In this action, Plaintiff Briana Cash sued Defendants Interscope Records and Brianna Castro for trademark infringement over Castro’s use of the stage name “Brianna Cash.” Id. at *2. Cash is an independent multi-genre musical artist who has published three albums, one EP, and a few singles on Spotify. Id. at *3. She owns the federal trademark registration for the “BRIANA CASH” mark in the United States. Id. at *6. Castro is a R&B and hip-hop recording artist who goes by the stage name “Brianna Cash” and is partnered with Interscope Records for an exclusive recording agreement. Id. at *5, *6. Interscope Records has invested thousands of dollars into promoting Castro’s image as “Brianna Cash.” Id. To determine whether the similarity between the names constituted infringement, the Court looked to whether Cash’s mark acquired a secondary meaning and whether there was a likelihood of confusion between both names. See id. at *16–18.
The court first looked to whether Cash’s mark, BRIANA CASH, acquired a secondary meaning to be considered distinctive. See id. at *16. A court considers the following:
(1) whether actual purchasers of the product bearing the claimed trademark associate the trademark with the producer, (2) the degree and manner of advertising under the claimed trademark, (3) the length and manner of use of the claimed trademark, and (4) whether use of the claimed trademark has been exclusive
Id. (quoting Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 778 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir. 1985)).
Here, the court found that Cash’s mark carried a secondary meaning as she used this name on music streaming platforms for her songs and albums, centered her musical activities around this name, and used this name for music organization memberships like the Recording Academy, SAG-AFTRA, and more. See Cash, at *17–18. As such, Cash’s mark was a valid and protectable trademark. Id.
The court then addressed whether the protectable trademark would demonstrate a likelihood of confusion? Likelihood of confusion occurs when customers would probably assume that the mark is associated with a different source of the product or service. Id. at *18. The court held that there is a likelihood of confusion as the two names, “Briana Cash” (Plaintiff’s name) and “Brianna Cash” (Castro’s stage name), only differentiated by an extra letter. Id. at *18–20. Further, the court found that Cash provided evidence to show that the public confused the two artists by presenting instances where the public tagged the incorrect artist on social media or mistakenly DM’d the wrong artist. Id. Lastly, the court found that since both artists’ music are consumed within the same channels of goods and marketing, like Spotify, iTunes, Amazon, and Soundcloud, there is a high likelihood that the public would confuse the two. Id. Thus, the court ruled that the similarity between the two names warranted trademark infringement.
Would HAVEN have a case for infringement? Most likely, yes. Like how Cash centralized her brand as an artist around her name on streaming platforms, social media, and for public forums, HAVEN uses this name to release her music on Spotify and other streaming platforms. See Cash, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129142 at *17–18; HAVEN, Spotify, https://open.spotify.com/artist/6xd3ACm5Dgf2Znj8abDUrd?si=6wolpgWIQ2G9pF60On1HZQ (last visited Feb. 22, 2026). As such, a Court is likely to find that HAVEN has acquired a secondary meaning as HAVEN has established her brand as an artist around this name through marketing for years before HAVEN. joined the scene. Additionally, like how “Brianna Cash” differs by only one letter, HAVEN. and HAVEN differs by a single stylistic mark. See Cash, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129142 at *18–20; See HAVEN (@iamhavenmusic), supra. Similar to how social media users mixed up Cash and Castro’s artist accounts on Instagram, HAVEN faced immense social media attacks for AI use despite not even being the original artist. See Cash, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129142 at *18–20; See HAVEN (@iamhavenmusic), supra. There is clear confusion among the public and a court is likely to find that the variation between the two names is not extreme enough. Moreover, since both artists released their music through the same streaming platforms, it’s clear that there would be a high likelihood of confusion. See id; King, supra. As such, HAVEN would most likely have a case for infringement, but this litigation process could cost significant time and expense.
Despite HAVEN.’S double controversy, the artist duo behind HAVEN. is still widely successful, with over 9.49 million monthly listeners on Spotify and having three “I Run” remixes with big names like David Guetta. HAVEN., Kaitlin Aragon, David Guetta, I Run (David Guetta Remix), on I Run- David Guetta Remix [Single](Spotify, Isekai / broke / AAO, January 9, 2026). HAVEN is still speaking out about the similarity between their artist names and the harassment she receives from users who continually mistake her as HAVEN.. Video posted by @iamhavenmusic, Instagram, (January 30, 2026), https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUJroN8ks0s/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==. Yet, it remains to be seen whether she will take any legal action to combat this similarity. Ultimately, the Cash case shows while here are some legal action that can help artists protect their stage names, HAVEN’s story shows how quickly harm can manifest against an artist’s image long before litigation.