Australia’s SC rules in favour of designer Katie Perry in trademark battle with Katy Perry
20 March 2026
Photo credit to CNN
Sydney fashion designer Katie Taylor triumphed over 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. On March 11, 2026, Australia’s Supreme Court narrowly voted 3-2 in favour of Taylor, whose birth name is Katie Perry.
Perry, who adopted the surname Taylor in 2015, applied for trademark registration of Katie Perry in September 2008. Meanwhile, American record label Capitol Records released “I Kissed a Girl” in April 2008, which was the debut single of the American singer 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. 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 put 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.
In May 2009, Hudson filed a notice of opposition to the registration of Katie Perry and sent cease and desist letters to the designer.
Yet, it wasn’t until 2019 that Taylor filed a case against Hudson for trademark infringement.
In May 2023, the Federal Court of Australia ruled in favour of Taylor.
Hudson appealed the ruling and won in November 2024. Finding that the marks Katie Perry and Katy Perry were deceptively similar, the appeals judges ordered the deregistration of Katie Perry. According to them, the singer had achieved global fame when Taylor started her business and had already been using Katy Perry as her trademark five years prior.
Taylor then appealed the lower court’s decision to the Supreme Court. In its ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the mark Katie Perry did not infringe the singer’s Katy Perry trademark. It also dismissed the statement by Hudson’s lawyers that she had attained a significant reputation in Australia when Taylor filed for trademark registration in 2008 and added there is little possibility of the two marks causing confusion. Thus, the court overturned the order to deregister the Katie Perry mark.
Lauren Eade | a principal @ Davies Collison Cave, Newcastle
According to Lauren Eade, a principal at Davies Collison Cave in Newcastle, 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,” she 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 added.
According to her, this will be relevant to future cases where reputation is claimed outside of a core good or service offering, especially where the reputation is claimed based on common industry practice rather than on the basis of actual use.
The case also demonstrates the importance of proactive trademark registration. “Because the designer had registered her trademark before the singer sought registration of her own mark, she was able to establish trademark infringement notwithstanding the meteoric rise of the singer’s fame in the time since 2008,” Eade explained.
A third takeaway is the increasing impact of litigation funding on the Australian legal landscape. Initially, Taylor believed she did not have enough financial resources to file a case. In 2019, however, she acquired funding, which finally allowed her to initiate legal proceedings, sustaining her for over six years of the trademark dispute, including two court appeals.
“Conversely, the dissenting judges agreed with the full court that rectification should be ordered and noted the designer had deliberately cultured a connection with Katy Perry, including in television appearances,” Eade noted.
The Supreme Court sends the case back to the Federal Court to determine relief and the issue of Taylor’s delay in initiating legal action.
- Espie Angelica A. de Leon
