Sydney Designer Katie Perry Wins Trademark Case Against Katy Perry

Sydney-based designer Katie Perry has won her High Court appeal against pop star Katy Perry, almost two decades since the legal battle first began.

Katie Perry, who changed her surname to Taylor after getting married in 2015, sought a trademark for her name in 2007, with lawyers for the singer first approaching her in 2009 and demanding she withdraw the trademark.

The court heard the designer did not know about the singer when first seeking a trademark, but had become aware of her following the success of “I Kissed A Girl”.

“I had never heard of the singer when I started my label,” she said.

“I was simply building a fashion business under the name I was born with.”

Born Kathryn Elizabeth Hudson, Katy Perry adopted her stage name in 2001.

In 2023, Taylor sued Perry for trademark infringement after the sale of Katy Perry branded clothing during her 2014 Prismatic tour and won.

The decision was overturned on appeal the following year when judges ruled the singer had been using her name as a trademark five years before the fashion brand was founded, and that the designer’s brand was liable to be cancelled.

However in a majority ruling on Wednesday, the High Court found the designer had not harmed the singer’s reputation or caused confusion, and was not in breach of the trademark laws.

No “real, tangible danger of confusion”, judge says

Justice Jayne Jagot wrote in her findings that Perry was not selling clothing in Australia when Taylor registered her name.

“It may be accepted that, before the priority date, Katy Perry was a famous pop star in Australia and internationally,” she said.

“However…the overwhelming likelihood is that exceedingly few, if any, people could have seen any ‘Katy Perry’ branded clothing in Australia before the priority date. In these circumstances, I am unable to conclude that there was anything unreasonable or untenable in the primary judge’s conclusion that the Katy Perry parties simply had not adduced sufficient evidence to discharge their onus of proving the existence of a real, tangible danger of confusion.”

In a a statement posted to her brand’s website following the ruling, Taylor said that the case, which she described as a “David and Goliath” battle, had been an incredibly long and difficult journey.

“But today confirms what I always believed — that trademarks should protect businesses of all sizes,” 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.”