Court rules fashion label “Katie Perry” does not breach trademark laws or harm the pop star’s reputation
Katy Perry has lost a lengthy legal fight with Australian fashion designer Katie Perry over the use of a shared name, after the dispute reached the High Court of Australia.
The ruling brings an end to a years-long trademark battle between the global pop star Katy Perry and the Sydney-based designer, whose fashion label also operates under the name Katie Perry.
According to reports from Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the High Court delivered a majority decision stating that the designer’s trademark complies with Australian law. The judges found that the label is unlikely to mislead consumers or damage the singer’s reputation.
Perry’s legal team had argued that the pop star had toured Australia and sold merchandise bearing her name in 2009, 2011, 2014 and 2018 without any objections from the designer.
However, in 2019 the designer launched legal action, claiming that the singer’s branded clothing, footwear and headwear infringed on her registered trademark.
The case moved through several stages in the courts. The designer first secured a favourable ruling, but that decision was later overturned on appeal after judges concluded that the singer already had a recognised reputation in Australia before the fashion business began.
Facing the risk of losing her label, the designer took the matter to the High Court in a final bid to defend her brand.
During the hearing, Katie Perry told the court she had not been aware of the pop star when she applied for the trademark in 2008. She said she only became familiar with the singer a year later, around the time the hit song I Kissed a Girl gained international attention.
Her lawyers also argued that the designer had used the name in business for more than a decade without issue.
In its final decision, the High Court sided with the designer, ruling that the use of the “Katie Perry” trademark on clothing was unlikely to cause confusion among consumers. The court also ordered that the designer’s legal costs be covered.
