What is the Katy Perry vs Katie Perry case that the singer won in ...

‘A tale of two women, two teenage dreams and one name’ – this is how one of the judges described the case involving pop star Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor, who sells clothing under her birth name Katie Perry. The court has now ruled in favour of the popular singer, overturning its initial decision which had favoured Taylor last year

read more

The dispute is between pop star Katy Perry and Sydney-based fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor, who trades under her birth name ‘Katie Perry’. Image courtesy: Reuters/@PopBase on X

International pop superstar Katy Perry has finally won the long-running trademark dispute with Australian fashion designer’s label Katie Perry, who sells clothing under her birth name.

An Australian court delivered the verdict on Thursday, with three appeal judges overturning a previous decision from last year that had favoured designer Katie Taylor over the merchandise sold by the singer during her 2014 Australian tour.

The judges wrote, “Whilst some die-hard fans of [the I Kissed A Girl singer and co-writer] may recognise the incorrect spelling, the ordinary consumer with an imperfect recollection … would be likely to be confused as to the source of the item and wonder whether it was associated with [the performer].”

On Friday, the court also revoked Taylor’s trademark registration.

ALSO READ | How will Australia’s social media ban for kids under 16 work?

What is the Katy Perry vs Katie Perry case?

The trademark dispute between international pop star Katy Perry (real name Katheryn Hudson) and Sydney-based fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor, who trades under her birth name, began in October 2019.

Katie Jane Taylor trades under her birth name ‘Katie Perry.’ Image courtesy: Instagram/@katieperry.clothing

Taylor accused the singer of infringing on her trademark by using a name “substantially identical to or deceptively similar” for merchandise sold in Australia.

Taylor claimed that the singer had been selling products under the name Katy Perry in Australia since at least 2013, not just at her concerts but also through retailers such as Myer and Target. Taylor, who registered her Katie Perry trademark in Australia in 2008, alleged this caused brand confusion.

In 2023, a federal court initially ruled in favour of Taylor, deciding that Katy Perry’s firm, Kitty Purry, had infringed the designer’s trademark during the singer’s 2014 Australian tour.

The pop star, who had previously sent Taylor a cease-and-desist letter to shut down her Australian clothing label, did not back down after losing the initial case, according to the New York Post. Katy Perry appealed the ruling and on Friday, the Australian judges overturned the decision, siding with the pop star.

Taylor now faces a heavy costs order and must apply for special leave to appeal to the High Court if she wishes to continue fighting.

How Katie Perry responded to the ruling

Following the loss, Taylor said she was heartbroken and devastated.

Speaking to The New York Post, she said, “I have lost everything, including my trademark. As you can imagine I’m devastated.”

“My label has been a dream of mine since I was 11 years old and now that dream that I have worked so hard for, since 2006, has been taken away. What do I do now? I will dust myself off and figure what the next steps are. Perhaps move to somewhere in the world where the name Katie Perry has no meaning.”

Taylor described the legal battle as a “David and Goliath case” and claimed she had experienced “nightmares” and “insomnia” due to trolling from the pop star’s fans.

“Last week was the end of one of the biggest battle of my business career, The “David and Goliath case” – legal action against the singer, Katy Perry, for infringing my Katie Perry trade mark in Australia – which I’ve held since 29th September 2008,” the Australian Katie wrote in a blog post in 2022.

Why did the court side with Katy Perry this time?

Taylor’s lawyers had argued that she was unaware of the singer until July 2008 and had registered the Katie Perry domain name in May 2007. However, the judges found that Taylor had applied for the trademark after already being aware of the singer’s reputation.

Katy Perry had proposed a “coexistence agreement” with Taylor in 2009. Image courtesy: X/@katyperry

The court also noted that in July 2009, Katy Perry had proposed a “coexistence agreement” with Taylor, which was rejected, The Guardian reported. The proposal would have been an “excellent outcome for both parties,” the judges noted.

“[Having] rejected the offer, Ms Taylor then chose to commence infringement proceedings … In that sense, Ms Taylor has brought this result on herself. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to return to the time of peaceful coexistence.”

The appeals judges stated that it was “unfortunate” that the case involved two women who had both worked hard to build their businesses using their names as trademarks, yet were unaware of each other’s existence.

“Both women put blood, sweat and tears into developing their businesses,” the judges said.

“As the fame of one grew internationally, the other became aware of her namesake and filed a trademark application,” they said.

One judge, who ruled in favour of Taylor last year, had even referenced one of Katy Perry’s biggest hits in her decision, “This is a tale of two women, two teenage dreams and one name.”

Taylor told 9News she would discuss with her legal team what next steps were available, but as of now, Katy Perry has not commented publicly on the victory.

The ‘Firework’ singer will return to Australia for her first tour in six years in June, following a brief visit in September to perform at the AFL Grand Final.