As US singer Katy Perry blasted into space, her 11 minutes away from Earth will have been a welcome relief from the drama unfolding at home.
Her namesake Katie Perry, a designer from Sydney, has received high court backing to revive her trademark war with the pop star.
The designer, who registered her Katie Perry label in 2008, claims the singer’s merchandise infringed on her brand.
A 2024 appeal ruled in favour of the Firework hitmaker, but the Australian High Court has now agreed to review the case.
Ironically, neither woman previously went by the name they are fighting over.
The singer, 40, was born Katheryn Hudson, while the designer was named Katie Perry at birth but went by the surname Howell, then Taylor, for most of her life.
The legal saga, simmering since 2009, reignited in 2019 when Taylor pursued action in the Federal Court.
A proposed co-existence agreement in 2009 was rejected by Taylor, leading to the current impasse.
As US singer Katy Perry blasted into space, her 11 minutes away from Earth will have been a welcome relief from the drama unfolding at home
Her namesake Katie Perry, a designer from Sydney , has received high court backing to revive her trademark war with the pop star
As the High Court prepares to hear the case later this year, the fashion and music worlds watch with bated breath to see who will claim the name.
The dispute has become one of Australia’s most high-profile trademark battles, pitting a local small business owner against one of the world’s biggest pop stars.
Taylor argues that allowing a celebrity to override her registered trademark sets a dangerous precedent for entrepreneurs and creatives trying to protect their work.
In 2023, a Federal Court judge found Perry liable for trademark infringement through merchandise sold during her 2014 Australian tour.
But that ruling was later overturned on appeal, with the court siding with Perry on grounds that she had built international recognition under the name well before Taylor’s trademark.
Taylor was devastated and heartbroken by the ruling in 2024. ‘This case proves a trademark isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on,’ she said.
‘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.’
At the time, she said she would take time with her legal team to consider the judgment and what next steps were available.
A spokesman for the pop star was unavailable for comment.
