Fame can open many doors, but in trademark law it does not automatically give exclusivity over a name for any product or service. The reputation of a trademark must be analyzed in the concrete context in which it is known, and the risk of confusion cannot be assumed just because one of the owners is famous.
Few causes illustrate this idea better than the dispute between American singer Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Perry.
In 2023, we wrote about this cause in our article “Two dreams, one name. The power of the name as a trademark”, after the Australian designer had achieved a first victory in the Federal Court of Australia.
The story did not end there, however. The solution was overturned on appeal in 2024, and the case later reached the High Court of Australia. In March 2026, the Australian Supreme Court intervened again and saved the KATIE PERRY brand from being annulled.
And the findings of the case are perhaps even more relevant now than they were in 2023.
Two almost identical names, two different fields
Katie Jane Taylor, born Katie Jane Perry, is an Australian fashion designer who developed her own clothing brand under the name KATIE PERRY.
On 29 September 2008, it applied for registration in Australia of the word mark KATIE PERRY in respect of articles of apparel in Class 25.
On the other side was Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson, known to the public by her stage name Katy Perry. The singer had been using this name professionally since 2002 and had already become internationally known in 2008, including in Australia, through songs such as “I Kissed a Girl” and “Hot N Cold”.
In 2009, the artist also applied for the registration of the trademark KATY PERRY in Australia. However, its protection mainly concerned products and services in the field of music and entertainment, not clothing.
This difference was to become essential.
From the first win to the cancellation of the brand
The conflict between the two began shortly after the designer’s trademark was filed, and in 2019 Katie Perry filed a lawsuit against the singer and her associated companies, claiming that selling clothing under the name KATY PERRY violated her rights.
In 2023, the Federal Court of Australia found that certain uses of the KATY PERRY sign in connection with clothing infringed the designer’s trademark. This was the moment we were also writing about in our previous article.
At the same time, however, the parties associated with the singer had also requested the cancellation of the KATIE PERRY trademark, claiming that the reputation already acquired by the artist Katy Perry would have caused the use of the designer’s trademark to create confusion.
At first instance, that application was dismissed.
In 2024, however, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia changed the solution. The court considered that KATY PERRY’s reputation in music and entertainment, along with the usual practice of artists to market merchandise, could lead the public to believe that KATIE PERRY’s items were related to the star.
The consequence was a major one: the cancellation of the KATIE PERRY trademark.
High Court changes the situation again
The designer appealed the ruling, and on March 11, 2026, the High Court of Australia allowed his appeal, by a majority of 3 to 2.
In Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5, the Supreme Court set aside the orders by which the designer’s trademark had been cancelled.
In other words, KATIE PERRY remains a valid brand for garments in Australia.
The ruling is important precisely because the High Court did not deny the singer’s fame. On the contrary, the court accepted that the artist already had a significant reputation in Australia in 2008.
But the legal question was different: what exactly was the KATY PERRY brand known for at that time?
Fame does not automatically mean exclusivity for any product
For the court’s analysis, the relevant date was 29 September 2008, the priority date of the trade mark KATIE PERRY.
At that time, Katy Perry was already known in Australia in connection with her music and artistic activity. However, the evidence did not prove that the KATY PERRY brand had acquired a reputation in Australia for clothing as well.
Prior to the designer’s priority date, no clothing items had been marketed in Australia under the KATY PERRY brand.
The fact that famous artists routinely sell T-shirts, sweatshirts or other merchandise was not enough, in the opinion of the High Court majority, to assume that a singer’s reputation in the music field automatically extends to the clothing market as well.
This is one of the most important lessons of the case:
Reputation does not exist in the abstract. It must be analysed as the reputation of a brand, in relation to certain products or services.
This does not mean that a famous trademark is protected exclusively for the products for which it is registered. In certain situations, the reputation of a trademark may be strong enough that the use of a similar sign for other goods or services is confusing.
But that link must be demonstrated. It cannot be automatically inferred from the notoriety of the person behind the mark.
It is also significant that, after the 2026 ruling, IP Australia updated its own Practice Manual, stating that the relevant reputation must be a reputation ‘as a trade mark’ and exist in relation to certain goods and/or services.
When fame can even reduce the risk of confusion
The High Court also made an interesting observation.
We could assume that the more well-known a person is, the more easily the public will associate a similar sign with him.
In practice, however, things can also work the other way around.
A consumer very familiar with the artist Katy Perry could notice precisely the differences between her activity and the products marketed under the KATIE PERRY brand by the Australian designer.
In the absence of the artist’s image, references to her music or tours, or other elements commonly associated with an artist’s merchandise, the mere presence of the name KATIE PERRY did not automatically lead to the conclusion that the products came from the singer.
Therefore, notoriety is an important factor, but it does not replace the concrete analysis of how the public perceives the two signs on the market.
What does the cause teach us in 2026?
In our 2023 article, the case first and foremost seemed like a “David and Goliath” story: a small business that managed to defend its brand in front of one of the most famous artists in the world.
Three years later, the lesson is broader.
Fame matters in trademark law, sometimes decisively. But it does not automatically erase previously acquired rights and does not turn the name of a famous person into a monopoly for any category of products and services.
It matters who acquired the right, when he acquired it, for which goods or services there is protection, for what the trade mark relied on is known and whether there is actually a likelihood of confusion for the public.
That is why the early registration of a trademark remains one of the most important decisions for a business. The market can change, brands can grow, and competitors can become incomparably larger. However, the date on which the right was acquired and the concrete limits of its protection can become decisive even after many years.
The case of KATIE PERRY vs. KATY PERRY shows once again that, in trademark law, the most well-known name does not automatically win.
If you want to find out if your trademark has the right protection for the goods and services you sell or if there is a risk of a conflict with an earlier trademark, the TAS Agency team can provide you with advice and assistance both for the registration of the trademark and for its protection in the event of opposition, annulment actions or other disputes.
📧 E-mail: office@agentiatas.ro
📞 Phone: 0745 160 163
