After almost 17 years of litigation, the trademark clash between Sydney fashion designer Katie Perry and US singer Katy Perry has finally been resolved. In a majority decision on Wednesday, the High Court of Australia confirmed that the designer’s fashion label did not violate trademark laws and was unlikely to cause confusion, irrespective of the singer’s fame at the time of registration.
Katie Taylor, a fashion designer, who was formerly known as Katie Perry, had filed to register her name as a business in April 2007, prior to any knowledge of the singer, it was stated in court. In September 2008, Katie Perry filed to register the “Katie Perry” trademark for clothing shortly after the debut of I Kissed a Girl, Katy Perry’s first hit single. At about this time, Katheryn Hudson’s team had opened an online store selling Katy Perry merchandise worldwide.
The court heard that the trademark conflict started in May 2009, when the singer formally opposed Katie Taylor’s registration and sent cease-and-desist notices. Despite this, the singer’s manager at the time, Steven Jensen, told Perry that her team had “not tried to keep [Taylor] from trading under her name.” In a June 2009 email to Perry, Jensen wrote, “We … have not tried to keep her from trading under her name, and have certainly not sued her for trademark infringement,” according to the High Court’s judgment.
Katy Perry loses trademark case against Australian designer Katie Perry https://t.co/uuoln5n0lI
— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) March 11, 2026
Steven Jensen advised Katy Perry to make a statement to the media to address the publicity, which had been fueled by the media coverage in Australia. However, Katy Perry chose to stay completely out of the matter. Emails included in the High Court ruling revealed Katy Perry’s frustration over the publicity and the media coverage.
Katie Taylor is a fashion designer who trademarked the name ‘Katie Perry’ and began using it to sell her clothing line in July 2009. On the other hand, Katy Perry trademarked her name in November 2011, but it did not include clothing. Later on, Katie Taylor filed a lawsuit against Katy Perry at the federal level for trademark infringement.
The singer, on the other hand, filed a crossclaim requesting the cancellation of the trademark, arguing that she had already acquired substantial reputation in Australia prior to 2008, and the use of the designer’s product could lead to consumer confusion. The federal court ruled in Taylor’s favor in 2023, citing that the Kitty Purry brand had infringed on the trademarks during the 2014 Prismatic tour.
After losing an appeal in 2024, where three judges upheld Katy Perry’s crossclaim and ordered the deregistration of her trademark, Katie Taylor decided to take it to Australia’s High Court. On Wednesday, three justices- Jayne Jagot, Simon Steward, and Jacqueline Gleeson- ruled in her favor.
The court dismissed Perry’s claim that she had already built up a significant reputation in Australia as of 2008, which does not extend to clothing. The justices found that Perry’s Kitty Purry brand and Bravado had been “assiduous infringers,” pointing out that most merchandise sold in Australia was clothing.
— Harish Chandra (@HarishChan20246) March 11, 2026
The singer, whose career hit a rough patch, had deliberately excluded herself from her trademark registration. A spokesperson for Perry stated that she had never attempted to close down Taylor’s business or stop her from selling clothes under the Katie Perry label.
The Spokesperson said, “Today, by a 3:2 decision, the high court determined that Ms. Taylor’s trademark can remain on the register. The court [also] 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,”as per The Guardian.
After the High Court ruling, Taylor posted a statement on her website explaining that the decision affirmed the ability of small Australian businesses to uphold their rights. She said the case was about more than just a name, highlighting the importance of protecting small businesses, standing up for what is right, and ensuring that every business matters.
