9 April 2026
Our Aussie born ‘Dark Horse’, Katie Perry, takes the win
Written by Dakota Raeburn
It’s not often that a long-running trademark case makes mainstream headlines, but when an Australian fashion designer by the name of Katie Taylor (born Katie Perry) won her High Court case against international singer, Katy Perry (born Katheryn Hudson), you may have heard about it. If you didn’t, here’s a quick recap of the events:
- In 2008, Katy Perry achieved significant commercial success in Australia, thereby establishing herself as an international pop star.
- In 2009, Taylor applied to register the trademark “Katie Perry” for use in connection with her clothing brand. In the same year, Katy Perry applied to register the trademark “Katy Perry”; however, her application in respect of Class 25 (clothing) was withdrawn after similarities with “Katie Perry” were identified. During this period, Katy Perry’s representatives proposed a coexistence arrangement, which Taylor declined (and has subsequently denied was ever formally offered). Following this, Katy Perry’s team withdrew their opposition, and Taylor’s “Katie Perry” trademark proceeded to registration.
- In 2014, Katy Perry used her name to sell merchandise while touring in Australia.
- In 2018, Katy Perry again sold merchandise under her name during her Australian tour.
- In 2019, Taylor issued a letter alleging that Katy Perry and her associated entities had infringed her registered trademark by selling merchandise in Australia. Taylor subsequently commenced legal proceedings against Katy Perry, claiming that the marks “Katy Perry” and “Katie Perry” were substantially identical or deceptively similar. During the proceedings, emails sent by Katy Perry to her manager were disclosed, in which she referred to Taylor in derogatory terms.
- In 2023, the Court at first instance found in favour of Taylor; however, it rejected her claim that her trademark had been infringed by clothing sold through third-party retailers such as Target, Myer, and Amazon. The Court held that Katy Perry’s merchandising company was liable for infringing the “Katie Perry” trademark. Katy Perry then appealed the decision.
- In 2024, the Federal Court of Australia overturned the earlier ruling that had awarded damages to Taylor against Katy Perry’s merchandising company, finding that Taylor had been aware of Katy Perry’s reputation at the time she applied for the trademark. As a result, Taylor’s trademark was cancelled, and she was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, with Katy Perry prevailing in the dispute.
- In 2025, Taylor sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia in Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA. Her counsel argued that, although Katy Perry had an established reputation as a pop star at the time of registration, this did not extend to a reputation in the clothing industry. Counsel for Katy Perry unsuccessfully contended that the High Court should refuse to hear the matter on the basis that it did not raise a question of legal significance.
- In 2026, the High Court allowed Taylor’s appeal in a 3:2 majority, holding that she was entitled to use her own name in connection with her brand, notwithstanding the fame associated with Katy Perry. Taylor was also awarded her legal costs.
Breaking this down, let’s have a look at what the High Court determined the Federal Court of Australia got wrong:
The Federal Court assumed:
- A pop star’s fame, plus
- The common practice of selling tour merchandise (like T-shirts),
automatically means the celebrity has a trademark reputation in clothing.
The High Court majority rejected this assumption, stating that you can’t just assume reputation transfers into a product category like clothing.
The High Court reaffirmed:
(a) Reputation must be evidence-based and class-specific
Under sections 60 and 88 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), reputation must be:
- Proven with actual evidence (sales, marketing, consumer recognition); and
- Tied to specific goods/services classes (e.g., clothing, cosmetics, entertainment).
(b) Focus on a real likelihood of confusion
The Court isn’t asking:
- “Could someone, somewhere, be confused?”
Instead, it asks whether there is a real, tangible likelihood that ordinary consumers would be misled or deceived, and in this case, the answer was “yes”.
(c) Assessed using “notional normal and fair use”
This is a key legal concept. The Court evaluates confusion by imagining:
- The registered mark being used in a typical, reasonable way;
- Across the full scope of the registered goods/services
Not:
- Extreme, unusual, or hypothetical misuse;
- Nor the specific way a party currently uses the mark.
(d) The “assiduous infringer” principle
This is another key legal concept. The Court reasoned that section 88(2)(c) should be interpreted in a way that prevents an infringer from benefiting from confusion they themselves created. Parties who persist in using a trademark despite being aware of an existing registration do so at their own risk, as any resulting confusion may be attributed to their conduct rather than relied upon to justify cancelling the registered trademark.
The split decision by the High Court means whilst the judges didn’t all agree, the majority did establish:
- Being famous as a person (celebrity notoriety) does not necessarily mean such reputation amounts to a trademark, or that they have a protection against allegations of infringement across all possible uses of said trademark.
- What matters is whether the trademark itself has a reputation in connection with specific goods or services.
In simpler terms:
- A celebrity might be widely known (e.g., for acting, sports, or music),
- But unless their name, brand, or logo is recognized by consumers as indicating a particular commercial product or service, that fame doesn’t automatically translate into trademark protection in any given class.
This prevents celebrities from claiming broad control over their name in all commercial contexts just because they’re famous. Instead, they must show that their trademark (e.g., their name or brand), has built a reputation in a specific market (like clothing, cosmetics, or endorsements).
Practically, the judgment underscores that brand owners seeking to expand into new product categories should secure appropriate trademark protection at an early stage and be prepared to adduce cogent, category-specific evidence of reputation. It further illustrates that reliance on personal notoriety alone will not suffice to discharge that evidentiary burden.
Notwithstanding these findings, the proceedings remain on foot. The Court is yet to determine questions of relief, including damages and costs, and to address the residual grounds of appeal not resolved in the earlier hearing. While the “Katie Perry” and “Katy Perry” dispute appears to have reached a critical inflection point, its ultimate commercial ramifications will be settled in the course of the Court’s final orders.