- within Employment and HR topic(s)
The trademark battle between Katy Perry, the American popstar, and Katie Perry, the Australian fashion designer, has taken an interesting turn. While the singer was able to draw on her global fame at the start of the proceedings, the High Court of Australia is now drawing clear limits on the reliance on trademark reputation, as Michaël Sumer explains.
In September 2008, the Australian fashion designer Katie Perry, who has been known as Katie Taylor since her marriage, registered KATIE PERRY as a trademark for clothing in class 25.
Katheryn Hudson, better known as Katy Perry, the famous American singer, initiated (and then withdrew) opposition proceedings against the trademark based on her own (KATY PERRY) trademark. This led to a legal dispute, in which both parties initiated proceedings against each other's trademarks.
The designer launched infringement proceedings due to the sale of ‘Katy Perry’ merchandise, specifically clothing. Infringement was found in the first instance, but the Australian Federal Court overturned this on appeal.
In turn, the pop star Katy Perry argued that the registration for KATIE PERRY should be cancelled due to a risk of confusion. In the first instance, the Australian court did not agree, finding the average consumer would notice the difference between KATY and KATIE.
On appeal, however, the Federal Court disagreed, finding that a risk of confusion did indeed exist, and consumers would be left with an “imperfect recollection”. The Federal Court also emphasised that Katy Perry had already achieved international fame before Taylor’s application. Given the common practice among pop stars to sell merchandise, including clothing, during concerts and to launch their own clothing lines, the Federal Court ruled that Katy Perry's fame could also extend to clothing.
High Court reverses course of Katie Perry trademark dispute
In March 2026, the Australian High Court ultimately ruled in favour of Katie Perry, the designer, finding that the appeal court had placed too much emphasis on Katy Perry's fame.
Fame in music does not automatically translate to clothing, and the argument that pop stars "usually" also sell merchandise is insufficient to extend fame to other products without actual use. Therefore, the KATIE PERRY trademark remains registered.
How would this dispute play out in the EU?
In EU trademark law, the holder of a trademark registration may object to the subsequent use of a similar sign for similar goods and/or services if this could cause confusion among the public. In principle, the holder of a trademark for specific goods or services cannot object to a similar trademark for different goods or services. Consider, for example, the use of the DOVE trademark for both chocolate and soap, or the AJAX trademark for cleaning products, fire extinguishers and a football club.
Under EU trademark law, however, holders of trademarks which enjoy reputation have the right to object to the use of similar trademarks for dissimilar goods or services. This is possible when the later sign derives unfair advantage from the reputation of the older trademark or damages it. In this case, the holder must demonstrate that the relevant public sees a link between the older trademark and the third-party mark. In other words, holders of trademarks with reputation enjoy broader protection, as they do not need to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion.
The fact that trademark holders within the EU do not need to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion for trademarks which enjoy reputation is an important difference compared to the Australian system. Had this case taken place in the Benelux, for example, Katy Perry might well have won the lawsuit.
Key takeaways from the Katie Perry trademark dispute
This case illustrates the importance of registering a trademark at an early stage, as well as ensuring that trademark availability is properly screened by a trademark expert before registration and use.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]