Hide Three days left! Support our fundraiser by January 5th and get the first BestNetTech Commemorative Coin »

Katy Perry Wins Trademark Suit Brought By Katie Perry In Australia

from the a-perry-by-any-other-name dept

It’s been over a year since we last talked about the trademark dispute between Katy Perry, the American pop star, and Katie Perry, an Australian woman with a fashion line. To bring you up to speed, and I’ll use first names here to keep the confusion at a minimum, Katy sold merchandise for her 2014 tour in Australia, which led Katie to sue the singer in 2023, nine years later, because Katie had a trademark for the name of her business. There had apparently been some back and forth between both women going as far back as 2009, with Katy offering to share the trademark with Katie so they could coexist, which Katie refused. The court sided with Katie in a rather insane ruling, given the complete lack of any customer confusion demonstrated in the case, and also ruled against Katy’s attempt to cancel Katie’s trademark.

(I’m so, so sorry for all the Katys/Katies, trust me.)

Well, Katy appealed the ruling, which led to a full on meltdown by Katie. She claimed the appeal was a “personal attack” against her. It takes a healthy does of chutzpah to sue someone and claim their appeal of that suit is somehow an attack on the person who initiated the lawsuit to begin with.

And now, a year later, the courts have sided with Katy Perry over Katie Perry, overturning the trademark infringement judgement and canceled Katie’s trademark registration to boot.

Three judges ruled that a 2023 decision involving alleged trademark infringement that favored Taylor should be overturned. In short, Katy Perry (the singer) − born Katheryn Hudson − can use her stage name to sell merchandise in the country, despite the clothing designer’s claim over the trademark. Since Perry had been using her name as a trademark five years before Taylor began selling clothes, and already had an “international reputation in her name in music and entertainment if not more broadly,” she was entitled to the use of her own name in Australia, the judges ruled.

The judges canceled Taylor’s trademark registration as well.

In addition, the court stated that Katie had attempted to associate herself in various ways with Katy, increasing the chances for confusion herself.

And if you were hoping that Katie Perry, who’s real name is actually Katie Taylor, was taking all of this in a more mature fashion than she did the initial appeal of the case, well, sorry to disappoint you, but:

Taylor was disappointed with the decision, telling The Guardian in a statement, “This case proves a trademark isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.”

She went on to say: “My fashion label has been a dream of mine since I was 11 years old and now that dream that I have worked so hard for, since 2006, has been taken away.”

Nope, that’s not what happened at all. Trademarks are worth plenty, when you don’t attempt to over-enforce them. They’re especially worth the value of preventing confusion in the public as to the source of affiliation of goods. Confusion that simply did not exist here.

And nobody stole her fashion label. The label can carry on as though nothing happened. It just can’t wield its trademark any longer, given the bad behavior in which Katie partook.

And so the pop singer can sell her stuff under her name down under once more, having successfully Katy-parried Katie Perry’s lawsuit. I’ll show myself out.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Katy Perry Wins Trademark Suit Brought By Katie Perry In Australia”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
33 Comments
Mononymous Tim (profile) says:

Tryin' ta keep 'em straight

In addition, the court stated that Katie had attempted to associate herself in various ways with Katy, increasing the chances for confusion herself.

Considering Karen.. I mean Katie’s behavior, I’m wondering if her choice of using the last name of Perry was because she had herself convinced she could go after Katy and win simply because it was in her own country. That would make this an even more awesome backfire, and getting smacked down from her undeserved short little victory dance is the cherry on top.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

In this case, it appears that Katie had grown her label to the point where she saw herself as the “big one” — at least in the apparel industry in AU, and felt it wasn’t fair that the entertainment star whose stage name she copied for her label would be given as much consideration as she, a successful AU garment designer.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

When I read the title, I was like “oh no, what did Katy do?”

What are you talking about? In both lawsuits involving Katy Perry I can find (including this one), she was the one who was sued, not the one who brought the lawsuit. Maybe you’re confusing her with Lily Allen and she should thus sue the English singer?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Quoting the linked USA Today article:

Pop star Katy Perry won an appeal Friday of a trademark decision brought by Australian clothing designer Katie Taylor, who sells under her birth name Katie Perry.

Since Perry had been using her name as a trademark five years before Taylor began selling clothes

[The judges] went on to allege that Taylor had at times tried to align herself with Perry, increasing the likelihood of “consumers potentially being deceived or confused.”

I believe it to be exceedingly unlikely that Taylor was unaware of Perry, and very likely that she had decided to use her birth name of Perry as opposed to her current name of Taylor specifically to trade off of Katy Perry’s fame.

David says:

For what it is worth, I think what the first court might have based its decision on was that Katie Taylor was born Katie Perry while Katheryn Hudson never had the legal name Katy Perry and uses it as a stage name.

But since she did so much longer than Katie Taylor… According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, lawyers for Katy Perry already filed trademark opposition to the initial 2009 trademark application of “Katie Perry” but ultimately let it drop.

That makes the 2019 action by the designer brand appear like being in rather bad faith.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

All this stuff is in computers down there, just like anywhere else in the world

With her $330 million dollar fortune, she could afford to hire hackers and break into computers down there in Australia and erase that suit then that would have been the end of it.

You can find such hackers on the dark when that can do that sort of things.

If you have money, you can do that.

And these new more untraceable cryptocurrencies, she would never be traced.

There are some cryotocurrencies only coming into vogue I wished I had known about years ago, a small investment would have made me a very rich man.

There are some that are expected to explode in the next few years that could make the first trillionaire, or even quadrillionaire.

solidus says:

Re: Re: No that's wrong

That post’s not worth dunking on. It only repeated a few words from the article to make up some bull, which was obviously just a jumping point before it segued to its sponsored content.

It’s not mentioning any other butt scones [I am avoiding certain words] to not trip filters, I assume, but if that’s a real person, it’s not really interested in legal systems or l33t operators, just in making you think about free moolah.

Really looks like there’s a lot more of that in BestNetTech lately.

David says:

Re: Re:

And then the hackers could break into the brain of the judge and erase the case from their memories?
What a bizarre, simple world you live in.

That was pretty much how “this election was stolen” worked, with a whole bunch of court cases erased from the collective memory of many people. The hacker can more effectively be replaced by chutzpah.

And “what a bizarre, simple world you live in” pretty much captures my sentinent regarding U.S. voting majorities.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

That can be taken care of too, and some dark web marketplaces that offer hacking services have the covered too.

Professional burglars can break into things like evidence lockers and steal and destroy any and all evidence

the expensive hacking services have that covered. Just find, steal and destroy all evidence and backups, then that will be the end of it

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a BestNetTech Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

BestNetTech community members with BestNetTech Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the BestNetTech Insider Shop »

Follow BestNetTech

BestNetTech Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the BestNetTech Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
BestNetTech needs your support! Get the first BestNetTech Commemorative Coin with donations of $100
BestNetTech Deals
BestNetTech Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the BestNetTech Insider Discord channel...
Loading...