The Australian High Court has ruled in favor of designer Katy Perry, ending a long-running trademark dispute with global pop icon Katy Perry, which had been ongoing since 2009.
Australian fashion designer Katy Perry has won her long-running trademark battle against pop star Katy Perry in the Australian Supreme Court, ending a dispute that began in 2009 when the singer was preparing for her Australian “Hello Katy” tour.
In the majority ruling, the court found that the designer’s trademark did not harm the singer’s reputation, was not likely to confuse shoppers, and did not violate trademark law. The decision represents a major victory for the designer after years of legal action over clothing, shoes and headwear sold under the Katy Perry and Katy Perry names.
Trademark issue over Katy Perry and Katy Perry
According to ABC News Australia, the case centered on who has the right to sell clothing under the name Katie Perry or Katy Perry.
Designer Katy Perry said she first started using the name for clothing and applied to register it before she heard of the singer. The court heard that she did not know about Katy Perry’s existence until after hearing the song “I Kissed A Girl.” She later filed a lawsuit in federal court in 2019, arguing that her trademark had been infringed by sales of merchandise bearing the singer’s branding.
Megan Fox and Katy Perry respond to Jim Carrey clone rumors
The designer initially won, then lost on appeal. Appeal judges found the singer had gained a good reputation in Australia before creating the clothing label, and said Katy Perry’s label was open to cancellation.
Katy Perry’s lawyers said that the singer’s stage name cannot be separated from her reputation in the market. But the designer said her adoption of the brand was innocent and pointed to a decade of merchandising without confusion.
Supreme Court ruling and Katy Perry’s emails
In the High Court ruling, Justice Simon Steward highlighted emails from Katy Perry’s manager, Steven Jensen, from 2009. In one email, he wrote: “She has traded under the name Katy Perry since 2007.”
He added: “Of course, this case was blown out of proportion because we (you) did not try to prevent it from trading on its name, and we certainly did not sue it for trademark infringement.”Jensen also wrote: “We are arranging some publicity (possibly a press release) to clarify the situation.” Katy Perry responded, saying, “I say keep me out of it completely.” She added: “Make it less important but release something from the administration, pretty much stating the facts… Don’t water it down, don’t apologise, nothing.”Judge Steward said Jensen incorrectly stated that the defendants had done nothing to stop the registration of the appellant’s mark. He also described Katy Perry’s trademark as a “small, self-funded business” and described the singer’s side as a “persistent or diligent infringer of appellant’s properly registered ‘Katy Perry’ trademark.” Costs were awarded to the designer.Disclaimer: This report is a journalistic report of the court’s recent development. Although every effort is made to ensure accuracy based on the information available, this does not constitute a substitute for a formal court order or legal advice. The final ruling to be published by the court is the final source of information. This article is a report on the current status of the case and should not be considered legal guidance.
