There is a particular kind of David-and-Goliath story that the legal system tends to mangle before it can reach a tidy conclusion. Sixteen years of courtrooms, appeals and counter-appeals will do that.
And yet, against considerable odds, Sydney fashion designer Katie Taylor — born Katie Perry — has emerged from Australia’s High Court with her trademark intact and, one imagines, considerable relief that she can continue trading under her own name.
In April 2007, Taylor applied to register “Katie Perry” as a business name for a clothing label. At the time, the High Court noted, she had never heard of the American pop singer who would soon make the name globally recognisable.
That changed in 2008, when a song called I Kissed a Girl detonated across global radio. A few months later, Taylor applied to register “Katie Perry” as a trademark for clothing in Australia.
Around the same time, the singer, whose real name is Katheryn Hudson, launched an online store selling “Katy Perry” branded merchandise worldwide as she prepared for her first Australian tour.
The legal dispute began the following year. In May 2009, the pop star filed a formal notice opposing Taylor’s trademark and sent cease and desist letters to the Sydney designer.
Internal emails later cited in court offered a glimpse into the early tone of the dispute. The singer’s manager told Perry they had “not tried to keep [Taylor] from trading under her name”, while encouraging the star to avoid commenting publicly.
Despite the opposition, the “Katie Perry” trademark was formally entered into the Australian register in July 2009. The singer’s own “Katy Perry” trademark was later registered in Australia in 2011, notably excluding clothing.
Nearly a decade later, Taylor brought proceedings in the Federal Court alleging that the singer’s merchandise, including clothing sold during the 2014 Prismatic tour under the label Kitty Purry, infringed her registered trademark.
She initially succeeded. In 2023, the Federal Court found that Perry’s merchandise sales in Australia had breached Taylor’s trademark.
But the victory proved short lived. In 2024, the Full Federal Court overturned the ruling and ordered the trademark deregistered, accepting the argument that the singer had acquired a reputation in Australia that could cause confusion with Taylor’s label.
The High Court, by a 3:2 majority, disagreed, rejecting the argument that Perry’s reputation in music and entertainment in 2008 extended to clothing. Trademark reputation, they held, must attach to particular goods or services. Fame in one industry does not automatically spill over into another.
The court also found that Perry’s merchandise companies, including the distributor Bravado, had been “assiduous infringers” of Taylor’s trademark. The judges noted that most of the merchandise sold in Australia was clothing even though the singer had registered her own trademark in a way that deliberately excluded that category.
Perry’s representatives have maintained throughout that the singer never sought to close Taylor’s business or prevent her from selling clothes under the “Katie Perry” label.
For now, the High Court’s ruling means Taylor’s trademark remains valid. The case has been sent back to the Full Federal Court to consider remaining issues, including the fact that Taylor waited nearly a decade before launching her infringement claim.
Still, the central principle of the case has now been decided.
Posting on Instagram to celebrate the ruling, Taylor wrote: “Nearly 20 years ago I started designing clothing under the name I was born with, Katie Perry. What followed became a very long legal journey that many people described as a David & Goliath battle.
“I simply wanted to build a fashion label under my own name. I’m incredibly proud of the business I’ve built here in Australia and deeply grateful for the support I’ve received along the way. This feels like a win not just for me but for small businesses everywhere.”
For Taylor, the ruling represents the vindication of something larger than a name. The case, she said, was never simply about branding but about showing that “even small Australian businesses” can stand up for their rights.
