Australian fashion designer Katie Perry has won a landmark victory in Australia’s High Court against pop star Katy Perry, securing the right to keep selling clothing under her own name after a trademark fight that has dragged on for roughly 17 years.
How the Name Clash Started
Katie Perry (now Katie Taylor) registered KATIE PERRY for clothing back in 2008 and had been selling apparel under that mark from 2008 to 2009. The conflict flared when Katy Perry toured Australia and sold Katy Perry branded merch, jackets, hoodies, T shirts, sweatpants, and other apparel during her 2014 tour, which the designer argued infringed her earlier clothing trademark.
Taylor said, “So many people said to me, like, why don’t you just give up? It’s not worth it. I really believe in standing up for your values. Truth and justice are part of my core and my values.” Mentioning the court battle was a long and difficult process, but she did it to show that trademarks are there to protect small businesses, not just large brands.
The Legal Back and Forth
The designer first won in Federal Court in 2023, but that ruling was overturned on appeal in 2024, when judges sided with the singer and even ordered the designer’s trademark cancelled on the basis of the pop star’s stronger reputation. Facing the loss of her label, Katie Perry took the case to the High Court of Australia, which has now restored her trademark and reversed the cancellation.
Why the High Court Backed the Designer
In its majority judgment on 11 March 2026, the High Court held that the designer’s clothing mark did not damage Katy Perry’s reputation and was unlikely to confuse consumers, largely because the singer’s fame is so strong that people can tell the difference. The court also criticised the singer’s camp as a persistent or assiduous infringer of a valid local mark, and stressed that Katie Perry’s adoption of her own name for a self funded small business was legitimate.
What This Means
The decision confirms that a small fashion brand can keep and enforce a legitimately registered mark even when it overlaps with a global celebrity’s stage name. It also underlines that a big name reputation alone isn’t enough to wipe out earlier rights, especially where the local business has traded for years without real world confusion.
