{"id":29493,"date":"2026-04-23T03:14:26","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T03:14:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/?p=29493"},"modified":"2026-04-23T03:14:29","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T03:14:29","slug":"katy-perry-the-world-famous-entertainer-vs-katie-perry-the-australian-fashion-designer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/zh\/katy-perry-the-world-famous-entertainer-vs-katie-perry-the-australian-fashion-designer\/","title":{"rendered":"Katy Perry \u2013 the World Famous Entertainer vs Katie Perry \u2013 the Australian Fashion Designer"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Australian fashion designer Katie Perry has won her 17 year trademark battle against the US singer Katy Perry in a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Katie Jane Perry is an Australian fashion designer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Katy Perry is a global entertainer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2008, the Sydney designer applied under the Trade Marks Act 1995<\/em> (Commonwealth) to be the registered owner for her clothing line.  This was before she became aware of the entertainer, Katheryn Hudson otherwise known as Katy Perry who has performed under that name since 2002.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Essentially, the case was about who had the right to sell clothes bearing the Katie Perry, or Katy Perry name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Australian designer had previously won her initial case heard back in 2019 but subsequently was unsuccessful on appeal but ultimately was successful in 2026 in the High Court of Australia. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The singer’s lawyers argued in the High Court that the Katy Perry stage name could not be divorced from the reputation of the name when it came to marketing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But Katie Perry, the designer, said her actions were innocent, that she adopted the trademark for clothes first<\/span><\/strong> and applied to register the name before she had heard of the singer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court held that the designer\u2019s label did not infringe on the singer\u2019s trademarks and that although Katy Perry had a well known reputation, that did not outweigh the honest use of the registered brand name by the Australian designer who commenced her brand back in 2007.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also held that the use of the designer\u2019s trademark on clothing was unlikely to deceive or create confusion given the singer\u2019s reputation in Australia and therefore was not in breach of the law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Costs were also awarded in the Australian designer\u2019s favour meaning Katy Perry will now have to pay the designer\u2019s costs of the litigation which will no doubt be considerable.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you have questions about trademark protection and brand ownership, our team at RMO Law<\/strong> is here to help. We provide clear, practical advice tailored to your situation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Get in touch with us today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\ud83d\udcde 1800 957 936<\/a><\/strong>
\ud83c\udf10 rmolaw.com.au<\/a><\/strong>
\ud83d\udce7 mail@rmolaw.com.au<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article is for your information and interest only. It is not intended to be comprehensive, and it does not constitute and must not be relied on as legal advice. You must seek specific advice tailored to your circumstances.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article Authorised by<\/em>\u00a0Roly O’Regan<\/a><\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Australian fashion designer Katie Perry has won her 17 year trademark battle against the US singer Katy Perry in a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia. Katie Jane Perry is an Australian fashion designer. Katy Perry is a global entertainer. In 2008, the Sydney designer applied under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Commonwealth) to be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":29494,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"off","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,715],"tags":[779,778,784,785,782,774,716,783,777,776,781,786,780,775,773],"expertise":[269,736],"class_list":["post-29493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","category-intellectual-property","tag-australian-law","tag-brand-ownership","tag-business-branding","tag-court-decision","tag-fashion-law","tag-high-court-of-australia","tag-intellectual-property","tag-ip-dispute","tag-katie-perry-designer","tag-katy-perry-dispute","tag-legal-case-australia","tag-legal-news","tag-trade-marks-act-1995","tag-trademark-infringement","tag-trademark-law","expertise-commercial-litigation","expertise-intellectual-property"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29493","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29493"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29493\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29497,"href":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29493\/revisions\/29497"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/29494"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29493"},{"taxonomy":"expertise","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rmolaw.com.au\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/expertise?post=29493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}