It’s been over a year since we last talked about the trademark dispute between Katy Perry, the American pop star, and Katie Perry, an Australian woman with a fashion line. To bring you up to speed, and I’ll use first names here to keep the confusion at a minimum, Katy sold merchandise for her 2014 tour in Australia, which led Katie to sue the singer in 2023, nine years later, because Katie had a trademark for the name of her business. There had apparently been some back and forth between both women going as far back as 2009, with Katy offering to share the trademark with Katie so they could coexist, which Katie refused. The court sided with Katie in a rather insane ruling, given the complete lack of any customer confusion demonstrated in the case, and also ruled against Katy’s attempt to cancel Katie’s trademark.
(I’m so, so sorry for all the Katys/Katies, trust me.)
Well, Katy appealed the ruling, which led to a full on meltdown by Katie. She claimed the appeal was a “personal attack” against her. It takes a healthy does of chutzpah to sue someone and claim their appeal of that suit is somehow an attack on the person who initiated the lawsuit to begin with.
And now, a year later, the courts have sided with Katy Perry over Katie Perry, overturning the trademark infringement judgement and canceled Katie’s trademark registration to boot.
Three judges ruled that a 2023 decision involving alleged trademark infringement that favored Taylor should be overturned. In short, Katy Perry (the singer) − born Katheryn Hudson − can use her stage name to sell merchandise in the country, despite the clothing designer’s claim over the trademark. Since Perry had been using her name as a trademark five years before Taylor began selling clothes, and already had an “international reputation in her name in music and entertainment if not more broadly,” she was entitled to the use of her own name in Australia, the judges ruled.
The judges canceled Taylor’s trademark registration as well.
In addition, the court stated that Katie had attempted to associate herself in various ways with Katy, increasing the chances for confusion herself.
And if you were hoping that Katie Perry, who’s real name is actually Katie Taylor, was taking all of this in a more mature fashion than she did the initial appeal of the case, well, sorry to disappoint you, but:
Taylor was disappointed with the decision, telling The Guardian in a statement, “This case proves a trademark isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.”
She went on to say: “My fashion label has been a dream of mine since I was 11 years old and now that dream that I have worked so hard for, since 2006, has been taken away.”
Nope, that’s not what happened at all. Trademarks are worth plenty, when you don’t attempt to over-enforce them. They’re especially worth the value of preventing confusion in the public as to the source of affiliation of goods. Confusion that simply did not exist here.
And nobody stole her fashion label. The label can carry on as though nothing happened. It just can’t wield its trademark any longer, given the bad behavior in which Katie partook.
And so the pop singer can sell her stuff under her name down under once more, having successfully Katy-parried Katie Perry’s lawsuit. I’ll show myself out.
