{"id":384574,"date":"2026-05-19T14:30:29","date_gmt":"2026-05-19T09:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=384574"},"modified":"2026-05-19T14:58:07","modified_gmt":"2026-05-19T09:28:07","slug":"australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"A Small Sydney Designer vs. One of the World’s Biggest Pop Stars: How Katie Taylor Beat Katy Perry in Trade Mark Dispute at Australia High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Australia High Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed by an Australian fashion designer’s mark “Katie Perry”, challenging the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia’s order cancelling her registered trade mark “KATIE PERRY” in class 25 for clothing, the Five-Judge Bench of Gordon, ACJ**<\/span>, Steward*<\/span>, Gleeson*, Jagot*<\/span> and Beech-Jones**, JJ.<\/span>, by a 3:2 majority, allowed the appeal and reinstated the validity of Katie Taylor’s “Katie Perry” trade mark, holding that Americal Singer Katy Perry’s musical fame did not amount to a trade mark reputation in clothing at the relevant date, and that the respondents’ deliberate infringement could not justify cancellation. Accordingly, the Court granted protection to Sydney designer’s ‘Katie Perry’ mark in trade mark dispute with American Singer Katy Perry.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the consumers would not assume a connection between both the marks, especially given the lack of features linking the clothing to the pop star’s established reputation. They would expect genuine Katy Perry merchandise to include clear indicators, such as references to her music or concerts, and to be sold in contexts associated with her<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> What’s New in Trademark Law: CGPDTM Publishes 13 New Well Known Trademarks<\/a><\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The appellant is an Australian fashion designer, Katie Taylor, who has operated the ‘Katie Perry’ fashion label since 2007, using her birth name. Respondent 2, is an American singer who has performed under the stage name “Katy Perry” since 2002. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 are entities associated with the singer Katy Perry. In 2007, Katie Taylor took steps to register the business name ‘Katie Perry’ and applied to register it as a trade mark in respect of clothing and fashion design. At that time, Katie Taylor was unaware of the singer Katy Perry.<\/p>\n

Although the initial application lapsed, Katie Taylor successfully filed a second application in late 2008, by which time she was aware of Katy Perry. Under the Trade Marks Act, 1995 (TM Act), entries on the Register may be amended or cancelled (rectification). Before her 2009 Australian tour, Katy Perry became aware of Katie Taylor’s use of ‘Katie Perry’ and sought either to stop its use or agree on coexistence, but no agreement was reached. She later applied to register “Katy Perry” in various classes, but withdrew the clothing application due to Katie Taylor’s existing trade mark.<\/p>\n

Despite this, the respondents sold “Katy Perry” branded clothing in Australia during and after the 2009 tour. In 2019, Katie Taylor sued for trade mark infringement in relation to clothing, footwear, and headwear. The respondents cross-claimed, seeking cancellation of the ‘Katie Perry’ mark on the basis of likely confusion arising from their earlier reputation. The primary judge found infringement by the respondents and rejected the cancellation claim.<\/p>\n

The respondents successfully appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court, wherein it was held that the ‘Katie Perry’ registration was liable to cancellation. It accepted that Katie Taylor knew of the second respondent’s reputation in 2008 and that it was common for entertainers to extend their brands into clothing, making confusion likely. Accordingly, the mark was invalid. The Court also found that the discretion under s 89 was not enlivened, and even if it were, it would not have been exercised in Katie Taylor’s favour due to her knowledge of the “Katy Perry” reputation.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> IPR April 2026 Roundup: Key High Court Judgments on Personality Rights, Copyright, Trade Mark, Patents and More<\/a><\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision — Katy Perry Trade Mark Dispute<\/h3>\n

The decision was delivered by a 3:2 majority<\/span>. Justice Steward, Justice Gleeson, and Justice Jagot formed the majority, while Acting Chief Justice Gordon and Justice Beech-Jones dissented.<\/p>\n

Justice Steward<\/p>\n

Steward, J., observed that this was a case where the “assiduous efforts of an infringer” led the Full Court to order removal of Katie Taylor’s mark, an outcome that should not have occurred, as it effectively rewarded the respondents’ wrongdoing. Steward, J., emphasised that: (1) much of the merchandise sold in Australia was “Katy Perry” branded clothing, infringing Katie Taylor’s mark; (2) this conduct continued over several years; (3) it was undertaken deliberately and with knowledge of Katie Taylor’s mark, despite Katy Perry narrowing her 2009 application to exclude clothing; and (4) liability was not avoided by the involvement of Bravado as licensee, as both Bravado and Kitty Purry were deliberate infringers.<\/p>\n

Steward, J., observed that by 2019, use of the ‘Katie Perry’ mark on clothing was not shown on the evidence to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. However, even if such a likelihood had been established, rectification under Section 88(2)(c) TM Act, would still not have been justified. Proceeding on the assumption that confusion existed, Steward J., explained that any such likelihood was not of the kind contemplated by Section 88(2)(c) TM Act.<\/p>\n

Justice Gleeson<\/p>\n

Gleeson, J., noted that ordinary clothing consumers would recognise that a well-known pop star might expand into merchandising or launch a clothing line. However, she found the likelihood of confusion to be remote. Consumers would not assume a connection between the designer’s mark and the pop star’s mark, especially given the lack of features linking the clothing to the pop star’s established reputation. They would expect genuine Katy Perry merchandise to include clear indicators, such as references to her music or concerts, and to be sold in contexts associated with her, like concerts or official platforms. In the absence of such indicators, consumers would be unlikely to infer a shared trade source.<\/p>\n

Gleeson, J., further observed that even where the designer’s mark was used less prominently, such as on a label, an ordinary consumer aware of the pop star’s mark would be unlikely to infer a trade connection. This was reinforced by the fact that the pop star’s reputation had only developed shortly before the priority date, making it unlikely that consumers would assume she had launched a clothing line without prominently associating herself with it.<\/p>\n

Gleeson, J., emphasised that the likelihood of deception or confusion must be assessed by reference to the permissible uses of the Designer’s Mark under Section 60 TM Act. While consumers might expect a pop star to expand into clothing, there was no finding that the Pop Star’s Mark had acquired a reputation in relation to clothing or footwear. The evidence did not show that the growing recognition of Katy Perry created any additional likelihood of confusion arising from the use of the Designer’s Mark beyond what existed at the priority date.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Full Court erred in finding that the respondents had established grounds for cancellation under Section 88(2)(a) (read with Sections 60) and 88(2)(c) TM Act. Neither ground was made out. Accordingly, there was no basis for rectification.<\/p>\n

Justice Jagot<\/p>\n

Jagot, J., emphasised that no “Katy Perry” branded clothing had been sold in Australia before the priority date (29 September 2008), so the mark had no reputation in Australia in relation to clothing at that time. Even in the United States, such merchandise was limited and sold only at concerts, with the online store launching after the priority date. Jagot, J., held that a general practice of pop stars expanding into other goods, including clothing, cannot establish a trade mark reputation in Australia for those goods. Accordingly, the primary judge did not err in reaching that conclusion.<\/p>\n

Jagot, J., accepted that Katy Perry was a well-known pop star before the priority date. However, no “Katy Perry” branded clothing had been sold in Australia, and only very limited items had been sold overseas at concerts shortly before that date. Katy Perry had not yet toured Australia, and it was highly unlikely that any such merchandise had been seen in Australia prior to 29 September 2008. In these circumstances, Jagot., J., held that the evidence was insufficient to establish a real and tangible risk of confusion, and the primary judge’s conclusion to that effect was neither unreasonable nor erroneous.<\/p>\n

Justice Gordon and Justice Beech-Jones (Dissenting view)<\/p>\n

Gordon, ACJ., and Beech-Jones, J., held that, at the time of the rectification application, the notional fair and normal use of the Designer’s Mark across all legitimate contexts was likely to deceive or cause confusion. Consumers would be led to wonder about a trade connection between the Designer’s Mark and the Singer’s Mark. It was emphasised that the inquiry under Section 88(2)(c) TM Act, is not limited to actual use but extends to all ordinary and fair uses. Thus, even if the designer’s actual products differed in style, prominent use of the mark on typical items such as hoodies or t-shirts was a normal use and, given the singer’s fame, the similarity of the marks, and the common practice of pop stars merchandising clothing, such use was likely to cause confusion.<\/p>\n

Gordon, ACJ and Beech-Jones, J., identified two key matters:<\/p>\n

First, Katie Taylor actively encouraged an association with Katy Perry in consumers’ minds through social media posts referencing Katy Perry, which the primary judge found were made to promote her label. This conduct increased the likelihood of confusion. Second, the Trade Marks Act assumes that a registered owner will protect their mark. A failure to enforce those rights or restrain infringement may, in some circumstances, amount to an “act or fault” preventing the exercise of the discretion under Section 89 TM Act.<\/p>\n

Gordon ACJ and Beech-Jones J further observed that, despite refusing a coexistence agreement, Katie Taylor did not object to Katy Perry’s use of the Singer’s Mark on clothing in Australia and raised no concerns until shortly before commencing proceedings in 2019. Although aware since 2009 of the proposed use, she took no action for over a decade, during which the Singer’s Mark’s reputation grew, and the likelihood of confusion increased. This prolonged failure to enforce her trade mark rights materially contributed to the risk of deception or confusion and could amount to an “act or fault” under the Act.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n

Thus, the Court, by a 3:2 majority, allowed the appeal and reinstated the validity of Katie Taylor’s “KATIE PERRY” trade mark. It held that Katy Perry’s musical fame did not amount to a trade mark reputation in clothing at the relevant date, and that the respondents’ deliberate infringement could not justify cancellation. Accordingly, the grounds under Sections 60 and 88(2) of TM Act were not established, the discretion under and therefore the discretion under Section 89 TM Act, did not fall to be exercised, and Taylor’s registration remained valid.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Delhi HC Cracks Down on Unauthorised “The Pioneer” Publication, grants ad interim injunction for Trade mark and Copyright Infringement<\/a><\/p>\n

[Taylor v. Killer Queen<\/span>, [2026] HCA 5, decided on 11-3-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Majority opinion by- Justices Steward, Gleeson, and Jagot<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

**Dissenting opinion by- Acting Chief Justice Gordon and Justice Beech-Jones<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> C Dimitriadis SC with R W Clark (instructed by S&A Law)<\/p>\n

For the Respondents:<\/span> M J Darke SC with E Bathurst and S J Hallahan (instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a 3:2 majority, the High Court of Australia allows the appeal of Sydney fashion designer Katie Taylor, holding that Katy Perry’s pre-2008 reputation as a pop star in Australia did not extend to clothing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67520,"featured_media":384584,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[104679,104681,104683,104682,104680,2616,46158,42104],"class_list":["post-384574","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-australia-high-court","tag-designers-mark","tag-katie-perry-v-katy-perry","tag-katy-perry-trade-mark","tag-singers-mark","tag-Trade_Mark","tag-trade-mark-infringement","tag-trade-marks-act"],"yoast_head":"\nAustralia HC ruling in Katy Perry trade mark dispute| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a Katy Perry trade mark dispute, Australia High Court protected Sydney designer's 'Katie Perry' mark in trade mark dispute with American Singer Katy Perry.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A Small Sydney Designer vs. One of the World's Biggest Pop Stars: How Katie Taylor Beat Katy Perry in Trade Mark Dispute at Australia High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a Katy Perry trade mark dispute, Australia High Court protected Sydney designer's 'Katie Perry' mark in trade mark dispute with American Singer Katy Perry.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-19T09:00:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-19T09:28:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Katy-Perry-trade-mark.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"A Small Sydney Designer vs. One of the World's Biggest Pop Stars: How Katie Taylor Beat Katy Perry in Trade Mark Dispute at Australia High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/19\\\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/19\\\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"headline\":\"A Small Sydney Designer vs. One of the World’s Biggest Pop Stars: How Katie Taylor Beat Katy Perry in Trade Mark Dispute at Australia High Court\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-19T09:00:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-19T09:28:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/19\\\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1837,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/19\\\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Katy-Perry-trade-mark.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Australia High Court\",\"Designer's mark\",\"Katie Perry v. Katy Perry\",\"Katy Perry trade mark\",\"Singer's mark\",\"Trade Mark\",\"Trade Mark Infringement\",\"Trade Marks Act\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Foreign Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/19\\\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/19\\\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/19\\\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\\\/\",\"name\":\"Australia HC ruling in Katy Perry trade mark dispute| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/19\\\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/19\\\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Katy-Perry-trade-mark.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-19T09:00:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-19T09:28:07+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"description\":\"In a Katy Perry trade mark dispute, Australia High Court protected Sydney designer's 'Katie Perry' mark in trade mark dispute with American Singer Katy Perry.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/19\\\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/19\\\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/19\\\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Katy-Perry-trade-mark.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Katy-Perry-trade-mark.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Katy Perry trade mark\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/19\\\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A Small Sydney Designer vs. One of the World’s Biggest Pop Stars: How Katie Taylor Beat Katy Perry in Trade Mark Dispute at Australia High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\",\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arushi\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/arushi\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Australia HC ruling in Katy Perry trade mark dispute| SCC Times","description":"In a Katy Perry trade mark dispute, Australia High Court protected Sydney designer's 'Katie Perry' mark in trade mark dispute with American Singer Katy Perry.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A Small Sydney Designer vs. One of the World's Biggest Pop Stars: How Katie Taylor Beat Katy Perry in Trade Mark Dispute at Australia High Court","og_description":"In a Katy Perry trade mark dispute, Australia High Court protected Sydney designer's 'Katie Perry' mark in trade mark dispute with American Singer Katy Perry.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-05-19T09:00:29+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-05-19T09:28:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Katy-Perry-trade-mark.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arushi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"A Small Sydney Designer vs. One of the World's Biggest Pop Stars: How Katie Taylor Beat Katy Perry in Trade Mark Dispute at Australia High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arushi","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/"},"author":{"name":"Arushi","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"headline":"A Small Sydney Designer vs. One of the World’s Biggest Pop Stars: How Katie Taylor Beat Katy Perry in Trade Mark Dispute at Australia High Court","datePublished":"2026-05-19T09:00:29+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-19T09:28:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/"},"wordCount":1837,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Katy-Perry-trade-mark.webp","keywords":["Australia High Court","Designer's mark","Katie Perry v. Katy Perry","Katy Perry trade mark","Singer's mark","Trade Mark","Trade Mark Infringement","Trade Marks Act"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Foreign Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/","name":"Australia HC ruling in Katy Perry trade mark dispute| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Katy-Perry-trade-mark.webp","datePublished":"2026-05-19T09:00:29+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-19T09:28:07+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"description":"In a Katy Perry trade mark dispute, Australia High Court protected Sydney designer's 'Katie Perry' mark in trade mark dispute with American Singer Katy Perry.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Katy-Perry-trade-mark.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Katy-Perry-trade-mark.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Katy Perry trade mark"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/19\/australia-hc-verdict-in-katy-perry-trade-mark-dispute\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A Small Sydney Designer vs. One of the World’s Biggest Pop Stars: How Katie Taylor Beat Katy Perry in Trade Mark Dispute at Australia High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76","name":"Arushi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arushi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Katy-Perry-trade-mark.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384574","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67520"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=384574"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384574\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":384586,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384574\/revisions\/384586"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/384584"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=384574"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=384574"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=384574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}