Sydney fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor has won her lengthy trademark dispute with global pop superstar Katy Perry, after the High Court ruled Taylor’s clothing label — itself called Katie Perry — was unlikely to deceive or confuse consumers.
“This has been an incredibly long and difficult journey,” said Taylor, in a statement posted to her label’s website on Wednesday.
Related Article Block Placeholder
Article ID: 263482
“But today confirms what I always believed — that trademarks should protect businesses of all sizes.”
Years-long legal battle over clothing rights
Using her birth name as inspiration, Taylor founded the Katie Perry label in 2007, and trademarked the brand name in the clothing category shortly after.
In 2009, the US singer’s legal representatives asked Taylor to withdraw her products from sale and cease trading under her birth name, before proposing a ‘co-existence’ agreement, which Taylor turned down.
Smarter business news. Straight to your inbox.
For startup founders, small businesses and leaders. Build sharper instincts and better strategy by learning from Australia’s smartest business minds. Sign up for free.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Taylor said the singer’s representatives withdrew their trademark opposition before an early hearing.
Two years later, companies associated with Perry sought Australian trademarks for the Katy Perry name in respect of CDs and performances.
But during the singer’s 2014 Prismatic tour of Australia, Perry sold merchandise through the Kitty Purry label.
Taylor filed suit in 2019, claiming Perry’s merchandising operation violated the specific trademark held by her fashion label.
Perry countersued, arguing the original fashion trademark was likely to fool shoppers due to the Teenage Dream singer’s rising reputation.
The case dragged into 2023, when Justice Brigitte Markovic ruled in Taylor’s favour.
Justice Markovic found Kitty Purry infringed on Taylor’s original 2007 Katie Perry fashion trademark.
The Federal Court also dismissed the countersuit.
It found the Katie Perry trademark was filed well before the singer reached global superstardom, at a point where no confusion was possible, meaning the original clothing trademark stayed intact.
Singer’s appeal granted — and overturned
However, Perry successfully appealed to the Full Federal Court, which found the singer did not violate Taylor’s rights by selling Katy Perry-branded merchandise on the Prismatic tour.
Perry also secured a court-ordered cancellation of the Katie Perry clothing trademark.
Taylor secured a last-ditch lifeline in 2025, when the High Court granted her application for special leave to appeal the Full Federal Court findings.
Related Article Block Placeholder
Article ID: 314980
That case concluded on Wednesday with the High Court finding the Full Federal Court erred in its appeal decision.
Taylor’s Katie Perry clothing trademark “would not be likely to deceive or cause confusion,” it found.
Further, the majority ruling agreed with Justice Markovic’s conclusion that Perry and her legal team had not fully borne out their claims.
“As a small business owner and a mother of two young children, this process has been incredibly demanding,” said Taylor.
“There were moments that were emotionally exhausting, but I believed in standing up for my business and for justice.”
The gruelling case showed “that even small Australian businesses can stand up for their rights,” she continued.
In a statement provided to SmartCompany, a spokesperson for Katy Perry said the singer has “never sought to close down Ms. Taylor’s business or stop her selling clothes under the KATIE PERRY label.”
The High Court has also asked the Full Federal Court to further consider aspects of the case, including what Perry’s representatives call a ten-year delay between the 2009 dispute and the 2019 litigation.
Editor’s note: This report has been updated with comment from Katy Perry’s representatives.
