Katy And Katie : The Fashion Designer And The Pop Star

In this article, we discuss a recent case of the Australian High Court, Taylor vs Queen.

The parties

This case dealt with two interesting and determined characters:

• The Australian fashion designer Katie Taylor (born Katie Perry), who in 2008 registered the trade mark KATIE PERRY in class 25 for clothing.
• The international pop star Katy Perry, who in 2009 registered the trade mark KATY PERRY in classes 9 and 41, but not in class 25 for clothing

It may come as little surprise that the name became the subject of a legal dispute.

The dispute

The dispute started back in 2009 following the spread of singer, Katy Perry’s, popularity internationally as a result of her live performances and her music being played on radios worldwide (including in Australia).

It was not until 2019 that the dispute gained momentum, when designer (Katie Taylor) took the singer (Katy Perry) to the Federal Court in Australia, alleging that her trade mark had been infringed by the sale of the singer's branded clothes, shoes and headwear.

Singer (Katie Perry) filed a counterclaim to cancel the designer’s trade mark registrations on the basis that the use of the KATIE PERRY trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

The primary judge found in favour of the designer and denied the singer’s counterclaim. That judge’s decision was overturned in an appeal to the Full Court, and the designer took the Full Court’s decision on appeal before five judges in the High Court of Australia.

The judgment

The judgment of the High Court was handed down in March 2026, bringing somewhat of an end to the seemingly never-ending fight which spanned over almost two decades.

The majority of the judges ruled that the earlier appeal court had got it wrong, finding that singer Katy Perry had infringed the designer’s trade mark.

It seems this matter will now go back to the Full Court to determine the quantum of damages and legal costs. 

Observations about personal names as trade marks

The judgment makes several notable observations about the use of personal names as trade marks.

• Personal reputation versus Trade Mark reputation

The High Court drew a firm distinction between an individual's personal fame and the reputation of their name as a trade mark, confirming that the two are not synonymous. The relevant inquiry is whether the name has acquired a reputation as a badge of origin for particular goods or services through actual use in trade, not merely through the individual's broader public profile.

• Limits on cross-category protection for celebrity names

The Court unanimously held that a trade mark can only acquire a reputation in respect of particular goods or services, and that reputation in one category does not automatically extend to another. Whilst cross-category confusion remains possible on the facts, the Court cautioned against reading its decision as granting celebrities de facto protection across all possible categories of goods.

• Consumer perception of name-based marks on clothing

The majority found that where a celebrity is known primarily in entertainment, ordinary consumers would expect clothing bearing that celebrity's name to display an overt connection to them, such as tour details, album art or song titles, rather than the bare name alone. Without such features, consumers are unlikely to assume a shared trade source, reducing the prospect of confusion between similarly named marks.

• The "Own Name" defence and competing name-based marks

The case highlights the inherent tension in trade mark law when two individuals share a similar personal name and each seeks to use it commercially. The primary judge found that the singer would have been liable for infringement but for the statutory "own name" defence under section 122(1)(a)(i) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), underscoring the difficulty of balancing a registered owner's rights against another person's legitimate interest in trading under their own name.

Practical takeaway

Individuals (even the famous ones) who intend trading under a personal name should still seek early legal advice on their availability to do so.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.