Featured Image Credit: Jesse Grant/Getty Images for Breakthrough Prize
Topics: Katy Perry, Celebrity, US News, Music, Australia, World News, Fashion
Rhiannon Ingle
Topics: Katy Perry, Celebrity, US News, Music, Australia, World News, Fashion
Katy Perry has lost a 17-year-long trademark battle in Australia after the High Court of Australia sided with fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor, who sells clothing under the name Katie Perry.
In a majority ruling delivered on Wednesday (11 March), the court found that Taylor’s 'Katie Perry' clothing trademark did not break Australian law and was unlikely to confuse shoppers or harm the singer’s reputation.
Judges said Perry’s brand and merchandise distributor had been 'a persistent or assiduous infringer of the appellant's validly registered' Katie Perry trademark, according to ABC.
A spokesperson for the 41-year-old 'Firework's singer told Tyla today: "Katy Perry has never sought to close down Ms Taylor’s business or stop her selling clothes under the KATIE PERRY label."
Advert
"Today, by a 3:2 decision, the high court determined that Ms Taylor’s trademark can remain on the register. The court [also] sent the case back to the Full Federal Court to determine issues raised by Katy Perry, including Ms Taylor’s 10-year delay in bringing her case against Katy Perry."
And in a statement posted on the official Katie Perry website, Taylor said the decision showed that 'even small Australian businesses' could stand up for their rights.
She said: "This case has never just been about a name.
"It has been about protecting small business in Australia, for standing up for what is right and showing that we all matter."
The ruling closes a dispute that dragged on for nearly 17 years and centred on who could legally sell clothing under the Perry name in Australia.
Taylor launched her fashion label in Sydney in 2007 under the name 'Katie Perry' (her maiden name), a year before the other Katy Perry's breakthrough single 'I Kissed a Girl'.
The fashion designer registered the name as a clothing trademark the following year - around the time the singer was starting to become a household name.
While Taylor first registered the name as a trademark in 2007, she did it under the wrong category without paying the fee.
Official High Court of Australia documents state: "On 13 September 2007, Ms Taylor applied to register a trade mark for a 'fancy logo' where the prominent feature of the logo was the words 'KATIE PERRY' in cursive font ('the First KP Trade Mark'). She applied for registration of the First KP Trade Mark in class 42 for 'clothing and fashion designing'. At that time, Ms Taylor did not appreciate that goods and services belong to different classes.
"In about August 2008, Ms Taylor realised that she had not paid the registration fee for the First KP Trade Mark. After contacting IP Australia, she was told that she could still register that mark but that she would have to pay late fees as well as the registration fee.
"At about the same time or shortly thereafter, Ms Taylor came to understand that, to obtain better protection, she should register a word mark in relation to clothes, which were the type of goods she intended to sell. Accordingly, she decided to let the First KP Trade Mark application lapse (it lapsed on 17 July 2008)."
The legal battle began in 2009 as the singer prepared for her first Australian tour, with Taylor claiming that lawyers representing Perry contacted her to challenge the use of the name.
"Imagine my surprise when one of the reactions I received was a letter from lawyers representing the US singer, Katy Perry," Taylor told the Independent at the time.
"They stated that I should immediately stop trading under this name, withdraw all my clothes and sign a document drafted by them to say that from then on I will never trade under this name ever again."
A wild email exchange between Katy Perry and her manager Steven Jenson - which was detailed in court - showed them discussing the trademark issue.
Jensen wanted to release a statement attributed to Perry, but the singer wasn't a fan.
She said: "I say keep me outta it entirely. Stupid b****es. I wouldn’t have even bothered with this [if] mtv hadn’t picked up this silliness. Dumb b***h! Rawr!"
At the time, Taylor already held the trademark and continued trading under her own name after talks between the two sides broke down.
When she refused to comply, Taylor said Perry’s team allegedly 'chose to simply disregard' her and her trademark rights while continuing to sell merchandise across Australia.
For their part, Perry's team say they proposed a coexistence agreement, which Taylor did not accept, and after that they dropped their opposition to Taylor's trademark.
Perry registered her stage name as a trademark in Australia in November 2011.
However, the protection did not extend to clothing.
Flash-forward to 2019, when Taylor took the clash to the Federal Court of Australia, arguing that merchandise sold during Perry's 2014 tours, which included clothing, shoes and headwear with 'Katy Perry' branding, infringed the trademark she held for clothing in Australia.
The court initially sided with Taylor in April 2023 and ruled that Perry had breached the designer’s trademark.
Perry then secured a partial win in November 2024 when an appeals court overturned the decision and ordered the 'Katie Perry' trademark cancelled.
Judges accepted arguments that the singer’s name already carried a reputation in Australia before Taylor registered the mark.
The appeals judges said Perry had trademarked her stage name five years before Taylor launched her business and had used it 'in good faith' during her 2014 Prism Tour in Australia.
They also pointed to her existing 'international reputation in her name in music and entertainment, if not more broadly'.
Taylor responded at the time by saying the case 'proves a trademark isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on'.
She then took the fight to the High Court, which on Wednesday reversed the appeal ruling and confirmed that her trademark remains valid.
The court found that using ‘Katie Perry’ on clothing would not mislead shoppers or create confusion, even with the singer’s global fame.
Judges also noted that most items sold during Perry’s tour were clothing.
Since the singer’s trademark did not cover that category, the conduct was described as ‘very much deliberate’.
Tyla has reached out to Katy Perry's representatives for comment.