Singer Katie Perry Defeats Katy Perry In A Trademark Dispute

US music star Katy Perry has lost a protracted legal battle after it was determined that her business violated the trademark of a Sydney-based fashion designer.

Katie Jane Taylor, a self-described “Aussie battler” from Sydney, filed a lawsuit against the I Kissed A Girl singer in the Federal Court, alleging trademark infringement, regarding the sale of clothing, including t-shirts and pajamas, in Australia.

Ms. Taylor, a mother of two, has used her birth name, Katie Perry, to run a clothing line since 2006 and has owned the trademark in Australia for more than ten years.

The singer, whose real name is Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson, was sued by a Sydney fashion designer, who claimed she violated her trademark by using one that was “substantially identical to, or deceptively similar.”

The Specifics of the Case

In a trademark dispute with Australian fashion designer Katie Perry, singer Katy Perry was defeated.

Katie Taylor, who sells clothing under the name Katie Perry, filed a lawsuit against the pop diva, alleging that her goods violated a trademark she held.

On Friday, a judge determined that the apparel purchased by Katy for her 2014 Australian tour did in fact violate Katie’s trademark.

In her decision, Justice Brigitte Markovic stated that “this is a tale of two women, two teenage dreams, and one name.”

The judge ruled that the vocalist of Teenage Dream, Katheryn Hudson, used the name Katy Perry in “good faith” and is not obligated to pay the fashion designer anything personally.

However, it will be decided next month that the star’s company, Kitty Purry, must pay compensation.

Goliath and David

In 2007, the designer began selling clothing under the Katie Perry brand name, and the following year, she applied to get it registered as a trademark in Australia.

The singer, who had her breakthrough in 2008, was found to have violated the trademark when she posted on social media about a jacket promoting her album Roar as well as ‘Cosy Little Christmas’ hoodies, T-shirts, sweatpants and scarves.

The judge, however, rejected additional claims regarding sales in particular stores and websites, as well as products for a 2018 tour.

The pop star’s attempt to get the Katie Perry trademark canceled was rejected by Justice Markovic.

Bottom Line

The result, according to the designer, was a triumph over a “David and Goliath” adversary.

Along with fighting for herself, she also stood out for the nation’s small businesses—many of which were founded by women—who sometimes have to compete with foreign companies with considerably greater financial clout than we do, according to a statement on her website.

Ms. Taylor asserted that the performer has been selling merchandise under the trademark in Australia since at least 2013, not only at her concerts but also at stores like Myer and Target.

Ms. Taylor’s 15 years of designing closed in Australia were disclosed to the court during the trial; a feat that attorney Christian Dimitriadis SC described as “not so easy.”

Ms. Taylor claimed that in addition to dealing with legal proceedings, she had also experienced cruel bullying because of the case’s prominence.

She said, “I have had to endure hearing negative remarks being made about me as I sat in court with tears in my eyes.”

“I’ve been called naive and opportunistic, but those are just characteristics of entrepreneurs trying to launch a start-up business,” the speaker said.

At a later time, Justice Markovic will decide how much Kitty Purry is required to pay in damages.