Katy is a hugely successful American pop star, whose fame carried her to extraterrestrial heights – even extending briefly into outer space for an unforgettable 10 minutes and 21 seconds. Beyond her music career, she has established a suite of companies to safeguard her various commercial ventures, with Killer Queen, LLC serving as the vehicle through which she protects and manages her intellectual property rights.

Against this global celebrity backdrop sits a very different creative figure, Katie. Katie is a fashion designer, born in London but – like each of her basics and loungewear pieces – made in Sydney. She champions Australian craftsmanship, consciously rejecting fast fashion norms by avoiding offshore manufacturing and mass production. Her journey to Sydney included stints across Asia, Europe, and South Africa.

Aside from their surnames, Katy and Katie have very little in common. But when both women chose to incorporate “Perry” into the trade marks for their respective businesses, and those seemingly parallel paths began to collide. What followed was a trade mark dispute spanning more than 15 years, pitting a global pop icon, the self-styled Killer Queen, against a designer chasing the Australian dream.

Timeline of events

1. Leading up to the KATIE PERRY priority date

In 2002, the singer Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson – whose mother’s maiden name is Perry – adopted the stage name “Katy Perry” and began building her career making a name for herself in the United States. By 2008, the release of her breakout album “One of the Boys”, had propelled her into the international stage, with global chart embracing her distinctive signature camp writing style.

In June 2008, looking to capitalise on this success, Katy applied in the US to register the trade mark KATY PERRY in class 9 for CDs, class 25 for apparel, and class 41 for entertainment. That same month, she embarked on her first international tour, which started in the US.

As part of this tour, Katy was scheduled to arrive in Australia in October 2008. Aussies could purchase tickets from mid-September 2008, but at the time the only available “Katy Perry” branded merchandise had been sold at the US leg of her tour.

Meanwhile, on 29 September 2008, the designer Katie Jane Taylor – born Katie Jane Perry – applied to register in Australia ,the trade mark KATIE PERRY in class 25 for clothing – the “priority date” for her application.

2. Between the KATIE PERRY priority date and registration date

The singer launched an online store for her merchandise in October 2008, and her name soon began appearing in retail stores across Australia following her tour.

As her profile in the country continued to grow, the singer’ began keeping a watchful eye on the Australian trade marks register. In May 2009, the KATIE PERRY application was first noticed, prompting the first roar between the parties. The singer moved to oppose the designer’s application and demanded its withdrawal.

On 26 June 2009, while negotiations with Katie were still ongoing, the singer filed applications in Australia for the KATY PERRY trade mark in the same classes she had applied for in the US. The following month, however, she withdrew her opposition for reputational reasons, allowing the designer’s mark proceeded to registration.

3. From the KATIE PERRY registration date to the start of the litigation saga

This period was both hot and cold for the singer.

In August 2009, negotiations with Katie broke down after the designer rejected a co-existence agreement in the clothing space.

A month later, the singer’s class 25 application was provisionally refused on the basis of the designer’s existing registration. Katy, ultimately withdrew her application in this class but went on to secure registrations in Australia for KATY PERRY in classes 9 and 41.

The singer nevertheless sold KATY PERRY branded clothing in Australia between 2009 and 2019, notwithstanding the designer’s registration. During this period, Katy had embarked on two world tours and became a household name in the music industry.

Katie, meanwhile, had long been aggrieved by the singer’s disregard for her rights. However, it was only in 2019, after securing litigation funding, that she instituted trade mark infringement proceedings against the singer.  In response, the singer sought to cancel the designer’s registration.

READ MORE: Lady Gaga’s Mayhem Trade Mark Dispute

The court of first instance and the full court appeal

1. First instance – Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5) [2023] FCA 364 (21 April 2023)

At first instance, the Federal Court held that the singer had infringed Katie’s registration by advertising and selling clothing in Australia. While the court accepted that Katy had established a reputation in Australia by the KATIE PERRY priority date, it held that this reputation extended only to music and entertainment – not to clothing. On that basis, the singer’s counterclaim for cancellation was refused.

The dark horse landed the first blow.

2. Appeal – Killer Queen, LLC v Taylor [2024] FCAFC 149 (22 November 2024)

On appeal, the Full Court unanimously overturned the first-instance decision. In finding for the singer and ordering cancellation of the designer’s registration, the court held that, given the singer’s significant reputation in the name KATY PERRY by the KATIE PERRY priority date, consumers were likely to be confused or deceived by the designer’s use of the mark on clothing. The court further held that the “own name” defence under section 122(1)(a) of the Australian Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) was available to the singer, despite “Katy Perry” was neither her birth nor legal name.

The California girl pulled one back.

The High Court ruling – Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5 (11 March 2026)

The designer was granted leave to appeal to Australia’s apex court. The majority allowed her appeal, set aside the orders of the Full Court, and reinstated her trade mark registration.

In doing so, the court confirmed that a trade mark can only acquire a reputation in respect of the specific goods or services for which it is used; it does not automatically extend to other classes. While it may be “common practice” for pop stars to expand into clothing, the trade marks used as stage names do not automatically gain a reputation for such goods.

Therefore, even though KATY PERRY had a reputation in the music space by September 2008, that reputation was not enough to displace KATIE PERRY in the clothing space. This remained the position by December 2019, as the singer could not produce evidence that the designer’s use of her registration caused consumer confusion.

Katie could finally light her fireworks.

What if Katie never left South Africa?

1. Opposition and cancellation proceedings

Without a registration for, or established goodwill in, the KATY PERRY mark in South Africa, the singer would have needed to rely on section 10(6) of the South African Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 to oppose or cancel the designer’s application.

This provision prohibits the registration of marks that constitute reproductions, imitations, or translations of international trade marks that are well-known but unregistered in South Africa. Crucially, however, the mark being applied for must be used in relation to the same or similar goods or services as those for which the international mark is well-known, and its use must be likely to cause deception or confusion.

In this case, the designer turned her birth name into her trade mark and could credibly argue that the section does not apply, as she had not copied the singer’s mark. Moreover, while it may be regarded as “common practice” for pop stars to expand from music and concerts to clothing, that practice alone does not necessarily render those goods and services similar. Nor would it necessarily follow that consumers would be deceived or confused.

2. Defending trade mark infringement proceedings

The South African Trade Marks Act also contains an “own name” defence under section 34(2)(a). Among other things, it permits the use of a person’s own name as a trade mark, provided that use is in good faith.

Our courts have held that this defence only applies to the use of a person’s full name, and only where that use is not likely to confuse or deceive consumers.

As “Katy Perry” is not the singer’s full name and given that she was fully aware of the designer’s registration and the confusing similarity between the KATY PERRY and the KATIE PERRY marks, the defence would probably not have saved her.

Therefore, it is likely we would have witnessed the same outcome in South Africa.

The lesson

Katie’s victory is a timely reminder that brand owners cannot assume that fame in one field will seamlessly translate into protectable rights in another. Reputation, like a hit song, may travel far and wide, but its legal reach remains tethered to the goods and services that gave it life.

For global stars and growing businesses alike, trade mark strategy should not be played by ear. Brand owners should expand early, file broadly, and secure protection across all commercially relevant classes before others take the stage. In trade mark law, the biggest risk is looking back and realising that your mark was the one that got away.