Australia’s Supreme Court rules in favour of designer Katie Perry in trademark battle with Katy Perry

Australia’s Supreme Court rules in favour of designer Katie Perry in trademark battle with Katy Perry

Australia’s Supreme Court on March 11, 2026, narrowly voted 3:2 in favour of Taylor, whose birth name is Katie Perry

Katie Taylor, Sydney fashion designer, won against singer-songwriter Katy Perry in their long-running trademark court battle involving the former’s clothing line label Katie Perry and the latter’s own mark Katy Perry. Australia’s Supreme Court on March 11, 2026, narrowly voted 3:2 in favour of Taylor, whose birth name is Katie Perry. Katie Perry, who adopted the surname Taylor in 2015, applied for trademark registration of Katie Perry in September 2008. Meanwhile, American record label Capitol Records in April 2008 released “I Kissed a Girl”, the debut single of the American singer Katy Perry, whose real name is Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson. The song became a huge global hit and a Billboard Hot 100 chart topper for seven consecutive weeks. Katie Taylor heard the song on the radio prior to filing the application for trademark registration, which was granted in July 2009. In October 2008, Hudson’s team set up an online store selling products bearing the Katy Perry name. The singer again sold merchandise with the same label to the Australian public during her concert tours in Australia in 2014 and 2018. Clothes made up most of the merchandise. Curiously, the trademark registration for Katy Perry in Australia, which was granted in 2011, did not cover clothing. Hudson in May 2009 filed a notice of opposition to the registration of Katie Perry and sent cease-and-desist letters to the designer. However, it wasn’t until 2019 that Taylor filed a case against Hudson for trademark infringement. The Federal Court of Australia ruled in favour of Taylor in May 2023.

Hudson appealed the ruling and won in November 2024. The appeals judges found that the marks Katie Perry and Katy Perry were deceptively similar and ordered the deregistration of Katie Perry. They said that the singer had achieved global fame when Taylor started her business and had already been using Katy Perry as her trademark since five years before. The lower court’s decision was then appealed by Taylor. The Supreme Court in its ruling said that the Katie Perry mark did not infringe upon the singer’ Katy Perry trademark. The Supreme Court also dismissed Hudson’s lawyers’ statement that she had attained a significant reputation in Australia when Taylor filed for trademark registration in 2008. The Supreme Court added that there is little chance of the two marks causing confusion. Thus, the court turned on its head the order to deregister the Katie Perry mark. Lauren Eade, a principal at Davies Collison Cave in Newcastle, reportedly said that the case provides key takeaways on the limits of reputation under Australian trademark law. “The High Court concluded the singer did not actually have a reputation in clothing in Australia, but only for entertainment and music or recordings. She had not actually used the Katy Perry mark at the time the application was filed for clothing,” Eade reportedly said. “The fact that pop stars commonly offered clothing merchandise under their names did not equate to a reputation in clothing goods. The majority of the High Court found consumers that were aware of pop stars offering clothing would likely expect other associated indicia to be used with the pop star’s name on those goods, such as her image or the name of or logo or pattern associated with one of her songs, her EP, or her concert tour – all indicia which had in fact been used on clothing goods offered by the singer in Australia,” Eade reportedly added. According to Eade, the case will be relevant in future cases where reputation is claimed outside of a core good or service offering, particularly where reputation is claimed based on common industry practice instead of actual use.