Singer Katy Perry has won an appeal to use her own name in Australia following a legal battle with a loungewear designer who had trademarked a similar moniker.
On Friday, three appeal judges for the Federal Court of Australia sided with the ‘I Kissed a Girl’ singer, ruling that a rival ‘Katie Perry’ trademark should be canceled.
The battle’s origins date back to 2007, when Sydney-based luxury loungewear designer Katie Taylor—born Katie Jane Perry—launched her business under her birth name.
The brand name Katie Perry was subsequently used as a logo on jogger-style pants and t-shirts, with Taylor submitting a trademark application for the name in 2008.
In the same year the team behind singer Katy Perry—legal name Katy Hudson—began planning for a worldwide tour to commence in 2009.
Merchandising plans for the tour were drawn up, which included items with Perry’s name scrawled across it.
According to court documents seen by Fortune, managers for the singer became aware of the rival trademark application, fearing it had been submitted in a bid to “obtain financial advantage” from the pop star.
In April 2023 Taylor successfully sued Hudson for the use of her name on the merchandise, with a judge adding: “This is a tale of two women, two teenage dreams and one name.”
But this week, that ruling was overturned, with the three judges commenting: “This case is an unfortunate one in the sense that two enterprising women in different countries each adopted their name as a trademark at a time that each was unaware of the existence of the other.
“Both women put blood, sweat and tears into developing their businesses. One became an internationally famous entertainer in the music industry, the other, a small Australian fashion designer.”
That being said, the trio ruled with the E.T. singer, adding: “Ms. Taylor’s trademark was not validly registered and that the register should be rectified by canceling its registration.”
‘Katy’ v ‘Katie’
Explaining their decision, the judges added: “In our respectful view, the difference in spelling of ‘Katy’ v ‘Katie’ does not take the aurally identical word marks beyond deceptive similarity.
“Nor in our view is the difference in spelling ‘striking’. Nor was there any evidence that ‘Katy’ is an ‘unusual’ spelling of the name.”
The ruling comes as Hudson prepares to embark on her ‘Lifetimes’ world tour next year—including more than 10 dates in Australia.
Following the ruling, Taylor told the Sydney Morning Herald: “I am devastated with the outcome of the case. I won my case at first instance and to have it overturned on appeal is heartbreaking.
“This case proves a trademark isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. 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.
“I will take some time to digest today’s decision and work out my next steps with my legal team and circle of supporters.”
Taylor did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment made outside of regular business hours.
