Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
Katy Perry has won her trademark battle against the Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor, who sold clothing under her birth name, Katie Perry, since 2007.
In 2019, Taylor sued the 40-year-old “Dark Horse” singer, whose real name is Katheryn Hudson, for selling merchandise as “Katy Perry” in Australia.
However, on Friday (November 22), three appeal judges decided to overturn the 2023 ruling that favored the Sydney-based designer so the Grammy winner can now sell merchandise with her stage name in the country.
The judges ruled in favor of Perry because she’d trademarked her stage name five years before Taylor started her business and used that trademark “in good faith” during her 2014 Prism Tour that brought her to Australia.
The judges thought Perry was entitled to use the moniker in Australia because she already has an “international reputation in her name in music and entertainment if not more broadly.”
“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,” the judges’ ruling read.
The judges also ordered that Taylor’s trademark be deregistered. They found that Taylor only applied for her trademark after realizing Perry’s reputation and some of Taylor’s brand decisions could have increased the chances of “consumers potentially being deceived or confused.”
“Whilst some die-hard fans of (the ‘I Kissed A Girl’ singer and co-writer) may recognize the incorrect spelling, the ordinary consumer with an imperfect recollection … would be likely to be confused as to the source of the item and wonder whether it was associated with (the performer),” the ruling continued.
In 2009, Perry reached out to Taylor with a cease and desist letter before her suggestion they devise a “coexistence agreement.” However, the designer rejected Perry’s offer.
The ruling addressed this decision, saying: “[Having] rejected the offer, Ms Taylor then chose to commence infringement proceedings … In that sense, Ms Taylor has brought this result on herself. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to return to the time of peaceful coexistence.”
After the November 22 ruling, Taylor said in a statement published by The Guardian: “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,” Taylor continued, adding that she plans to consult her legal team on next steps.
She also spoke to The New York Post, lamenting: “I have lost everything, including my trademark. As you can imagine I’m devastated,” she said.
“What do I do now? I will dust myself off and figure what the next steps are. Perhaps move to somewhere in the world where the name Katie Perry has no meaning.”
Perry’s representatives did not immediately respond to The Independent’s request for comment.
