Pop star Katy Perry has lost a long-running trademark battle in Australia to fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor, who sells clothing under the name Katie Perry.
In a majority decision on Wednesday, the High Court of Australia ruled that Taylor’s trademark for the “Katie Perry” clothing label did not breach the country’s law and that it was unlikely to mislead consumers or damage the singer’s reputation.
It said Katy Perry’s label and merchandise distributor had been a “a persistent or assiduous infringer of the appellant’s validly registered” Katie Perry trademark, according to ABC.
In a statement to the Guardian, a spokesperson for the “Roar” singer said that “Katy Perry has never sought to close down Ms Taylor’s business or stop her selling clothes under the KATIE PERRY label”.
The ruling ends a dispute that has stretched for nearly 17 years and focused on who has the right to sell clothing under the Perry name in Australia.
Taylor, born Katie Perry, launched her fashion label in Sydney in 2007 and registered “Katie Perry” as a trademark for clothing in 2008. At the time, the American singer, whose real name is Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson, had already broken through internationally under the stage name Katy Perry following the release of her single “I Kissed a Girl”.
The conflict first emerged in 2009 when Perry was preparing for her first Australian tour and her lawyers contacted Taylor to challenge the designer’s 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.”
Taylor had already received her trademark registration at this point and continued operating the label under her own name after negotiations between the parties failed.
However, when Taylor told Perry’s team that she wouldn’t comply, her representatives allegedly “chose to simply disregard” her and her trademark rights, and continued to sell her merchandise across the country.
The musician’s trademark for her stage name did not extend to clothing and was registered in Australia in November 2011.
In 2019, Taylor filed proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, arguing that merchandise sold during the singer’s tours in 2014 – clothing, shoes and headwear branded “Katy Perry” – infringed the trademark she had registered for clothing in the country.
The court initially ruled in Taylor’s favour in April 2023 and found Katy Perry guilty of breaching the designer’s trademark.
Perry won a partial victory in November 2024 after the appeals court overturned the decision and ordered the “Katie Perry” trademark cancelled, accepting the argument that the singer’s name had already gained a reputation in Australia before the designer registered the mark.
The judges ruled in favour of Perry because she had trademarked her stage name five years before Taylor started her business. They said the singer had used that trademark “in good faith” during her 2014 Prism Tour that brought her to Australia.
The judges thought Perry was entitled to use the moniker in Australia because she already had an “international reputation in her name in music and entertainment if not more broadly.”
Taylor said in a statement at the time that the case “proves a trademark isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on”.
Taylor appealed to the High Court, which on Wednesday reversed the appeal decision and ruled that the designer’s trademark should remain valid.
It concluded the label’s use on clothing would not deceive consumers or create confusion despite the singer’s global fame.
The judges added that most of what was sold during the Katy Perry tour was clothing, even though the Katy Perry trademark didn’t cover that category of merchandise and was, therefore, described as “very much deliberate” conduct.
The Independent has contacted Perry’s representatives for comment.
In a statement after the verdict, Taylor said: “This has been an incredibly long and difficult journey. But today confirms what I always believed – that trademarks should protect businesses of all sizes.”
“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,” she said, according to the BBC.