Katy Perry vs. Katie Perry Lawsuit Continues After Australian Appeal

Katy Perry has been dealt a loss in her long-running trademark dispute with an Australian fashion designer named Katie Perry — but the case is not yet over.

In a Wednesday (March 11) ruling, Australia’s highest court sided with designer Katie Perry, who also goes by her married name Katie Taylor, to restore her brand’s trademark. A lower court had previously granted pop star Katy Perry’s request to cancel the trademark in response to an infringement lawsuit initiated by Katie.

The case will now head back down for further litigation on Katie’s claims, brought in 2019, that accuse Katy of infringing her fashion brand’s trademarks by selling official merch in Australia. Katy says the claims should be dismissed because Katie improperly waited a decade to sue.

The dispute dates all the way back to 2008, when Katie launched her brand and registered an Australian trademark for the name “Katie Perry.” A year later, following the success of Katy’s breakout album One of the Boys and its Billboard Hot 100 chart-topper “I Kissed a Girl,” the singer’s reps demanded that Katie withdraw her trademark.

Katy’s lawyers offered Katie a co-existence agreement in 2009 that would have allowed them both to use the name with certain conditions, but Katie declined. Ten years later, Katie sued Katy for trademark infringement, and the designer was initially victorious in a 2023 court ruling.

In 2024, a mid-level Australian appeals court reversed that decision and instead granted Katy’s counter-request to cancel Katie’s trademark. Fast forward to Wednesday, when five judges on the High Court of Australia voted 3-2 to again reverse course and give Katie back her trademark.

The crux of the majority opinion was that in September 2008, when Katie registered the mark, Katy was not selling clothing in Australia. In fact, wrote Justice Jayne Jagot, Katy did not even launch her online merch store until a month later, in October 2008.

“It may be accepted that, before the priority date, Katy Perry was a famous pop star in Australia and internationally,” wrote the judge. “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 statement posted to the Katie Perry website on Wednesday, Katie 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,” Katie added. “It has been about protecting small business in Australia, for standing up for what is right and showing that we all matter.”

A rep for Katy, meanwhile, said in a statement that the pop star “has never sought to close down Ms. Taylor’s business or stop her selling clothes under the ‘Katie Perry’ label.”

“Today, by a 3:2 decision, the High Court determined that Ms. Taylor’s trademark can remain on the register,” said Katy’s rep. “The court sent the case back to the Full Federal Court to determine issues raised by Katy Perry, including Ms. Taylor’s 10-year delay in bringing her case against Katy Perry.”