Updated ,first published
A Sydney fashion designer who sells clothes under the name “Katie Perry” has won a major legal battle against superstar Katy Perry after the High Court ruled that the singer had continued to infringe her trademark.
On Wednesday, the country’s highest court upheld a preliminary ruling that found that Fireworks The singer had engaged in “non-compliance” with the trademark rights of designer Katie Taylor (nee Perry), marking the end of a dispute that has continued for almost 17 years.
Taylor, owner of A Small businesses sell the basics of lifeshe first applied to register the “Katie Perry” trademark in September 2008 after she began selling her clothes at Paddington Markets in Sydney. Several months earlier, Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson, performing under the stage name Katy Perry, released her first single, I kissed a girl, spawning a career that has included record sales of over 150 million.
For Taylor, it would mark the beginning of a long David and Goliath battle with a big international star.
In 2009, Perry’s management first sent cease and desist letters to Taylor over Katie Perry’s name.
During testimony, the court heard that Perry’s manager, Steven Jensen, was aware of Taylor’s brand in 2009 and tried to persuade the artist to make a statement about the matter.
“As is often the case in Australia, the tabloids have picked this up and turned it into a ‘story’,” he said in emails cited in the judgment.
But Perry had replied that he wanted to “put me out completely”.
“Stupid comedy. I wouldn’t even bother with this (if) mtv didn’t pick up this crap. Dumb! Rawr!” He said in response.
Taylor later rejected an agreement proposed by Perry’s team for the two trademarks to exist, and in 2019, began legal action against the singer.
He succeeded before the Federal Court in 2023, when Judge Brigitte Markovic ruled that the singer had infringed his trademark. The decision was overturned on appeal by the Full Federal Court in 2024, with judges ordering the cancellation of Taylor’s trademark.
But on Wednesday, three High Court judges – Jayne Jagot, Simon Steward and Jacqueline Gleeson – sided with Taylor, with two of their colleagues dissenting. Perry’s team argued that because the singer already had a reputation in September 2008, Taylor’s trademark was likely to deceive or cause confusion. But the High Court rejected this argument, ruling that Perry was not qualified in Australia for the clothing. Despite her career taking off, not a single piece of Katy Perry-branded clothing had been sold in Australia to date.
Instead, the court ruled that Perry failed to prove that there was any genuine confusion over the trademark. Perry, the star with a fortune of $US360 million ($505 million) will be on the hook for Taylor’s expenses. The exact number will be determined by the Federal Court.
Gilbert + Tobin partner Michael Williams, who heads the firm’s technology and intellectual property group, told this newspaper that the imminent High Court decision would have a far-reaching impact.
“I think it will strengthen the fundamental principles (of trademark law), and I think it would probably be seen as a logical consequence … that you have an Australian trademark owner whose rights are not easily overridden by an international celebrity,” he said.
Williams told this magazine that many of the Supreme Court’s rulings also expressed disapproval of Perry’s behavior toward Taylor.
“There is also a theme that runs through the majority’s decision, and that is disapproval of the dismissive manner in which the singer and her management handled Taylor’s trademark application,” he said.
Perry’s representative said: “Katy Perry has never sought to shut down Ms. Taylor’s business or prevent her from selling clothing under the KATIE PERRY label. Today, in a 3:2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Taylor’s trademark can remain on the register.”
In a statement, Taylor said the decision is a victory for small businesses.
“As a small business owner and mother of two young children, this process has been very demanding,” she said.
“There were moments that were emotionally draining, but I believed in defending my business and justice.”
Business Brief Magazine provides top stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to receive it every weekday morning.
Kishor Napier-Raman is senior business writer for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. He previously worked as a CBD reporter and journalist in the press gallery of the federal parliament.Connect through X or email address.
