A long-standing legal dispute between international music icon Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor has taken another turn, demonstrating that even seemingly settled matters can resurface.
Taylor initiated legal proceedings against Perry in 2019, challenging the singer’s use of the “Katie Perry” branding for merchandise, including apparel, a venture launched alongside Perry’s “Prism” tour in 2014.
Taylor began marketing her own clothing line under the “Katie Perry” label back in 2007, inspired by a journey to Italy. She has secured a significant victory today as the High Court granted her application for special leave, allowing her lawsuit against Perry to proceed.
This decision overturns a previous judgment from November delivered by the Federal Court, which concluded that Perry’s company, Kitty Purry, did not infringe on Taylor’s trademark. The Full Court had previously dismissed findings made in 2023 suggesting infringement.
The earlier ruling indicated that Taylor’s own trademark was at risk of being deregistered.
During today’s proceedings, Christian Dimitriadis SC, representing Taylor, argued that the appeal judges misinterpreted Australian trade mark law. He contended that Perry’s renown as a pop star in 2009 did not automatically imply she had a reputation for selling clothing at that time.
The Full Court reasoned that while Perry wasn’t initially known for selling clothes, her celebrity status suggested a potential expansion into branded merchandise that could lead to consumer confusion.
High Court Justice Jayne Jagot questioned this premise during Friday’s session. “If you’re sufficiently famous, the capacity is to monetise in all kinds of directions, not just clothing,” she stated.
Justice Jagot further cautioned that extending this logic could negatively impact a wide range of Australian businesses, potentially impacting sales of products such as:
- Whiskey
- Wine
- Perfume
- Even invisible teeth braces
Mr. Dimitriadis argued that Taylor had the unfortunate circumstance of registering a trademark closely resembling that of someone who became famous and subsequently began selling clothing, potentially infringing on her mark.
He asserted that the Full Court’s decision to consider deregistering the “Katie Perry” brand based on the designer’s alleged knowledge of Perry’s rising fame was an incorrect assessment.
Perry’s legal counsel, Matthew Darke SC, attempted to dissuade the High Court from hearing the appeal, arguing that it did not present a significant question of law. This argument proved unsuccessful.
Katie Jane Taylor declined to provide comments following today’s court proceedings.
The High Court is scheduled to hear the full appeal at a future date.
