The long‑running trade mark battle between US pop star Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Perry is one of the most significant brand disputes to reach the Australian courts in recent years. It has already produced two sharply different decisions from the Federal Court at first instance in 2023, then on appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court in 2024. The proceedings culminated in a split (3:2) decision of the High Court on 11 March 2026, resulting in the designer’s KATIE PERRY trade mark registration being allowed to remain on the Trade Marks Register and the singer’s companies liable for trade mark infringement. 

The case turned on a deceptively simple question: who should own the right to trade under the name “Katy/Katie Perry” in Australia? The answer turned on reputation, timing and strategic choices made the parties years earlier.

The High Court’s decision is now the leading Australian authority on how trade mark rights in personal names are to be assessed, and on the limits of using reputation and later commercial success to displace a registered trade mark.

Two Katies, one name 

By way of background, this dispute concerned:

• Katy Perry (the singer): the global popstar (born Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson), who adopted the stage name KATY PERRY in 2002 to avoid confusion with the actress Kate Hudson, and rose to international fame in 2008; and
• Katie Perry (the designer): an Australian fashion designer (born Katie Jane Taylor), who launched her clothing label under the name KATIE PERRY in 2007.

The designer applied to register KATIE PERRY as a trade mark for clothing in Australia in September 2008. The singer opposed the designer’s trade mark application and then applied to register her own KATY PERRY trade mark for clothing in 2009. 

The designer’s earlier trade mark was cited against the singer’s application, and the parties did have some correspondence in 2009, and attempted to negotiate a co-existence in relation to clothing, but the designer rejected this proposal and the singer ended up withdrawing her opposition, which allowed the designer’s KATIE PERRY mark to then be registered in July 2009. 

After a seemingly peaceful decade, the designer commenced proceedings alleging that the singer’s sale and promotion of KATY PERRY‑branded clothing and merchandise in Australia infringed her registered trade mark. According to evidence given by the designer, the proceedings were a long time in the making, but it was only when she became aware of litigation funding through a new legal counsel that she was in a position to do take action. 

Due to the relevant six-year limitation period, the proceedings concerned alleged trade mark infringement between 2013 and 2019, which included the singer’s Prismatic and Witness world tours as well of sales of merchandise and licensed products through various retail channels including online, major retailers and some pop-up stores. 

In response, the singer brought a cross-claim seeking the removal of the designer’s KATIE PERRY word mark registration. 

First instance: registration takes priority

Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5) [2023] FCA 364 (21 April 2023)

At first instance, the Federal Court found in favour of the designer.

With a reference to the singer’s famous Teenage Dream album, Justice Markovic opened her judgment in the case by stating [at 1] “This is a tale of two women, two teenage dreams and one name.”

At first instance, the Court held that:

• the singer had infringed the designer’s KATIE PERRY trade mark by advertising and selling clothing in Australia;
• the infringement did not extend to footwear or headgear, because the registration covered “clothing” only; and
• the designer’s trade mark registration should not be cancelled.

Although the Court accepted that the singer had a reputation in Australia before 2008, it found that this reputation was in music and entertainment and not clothing. On that basis, the designer’s registered rights prevailed.

On appeal: reputation reshapes the outcome

Killer Queen, LLC v Taylor [2024] FCAFC 149 (22 November 2024)

On appeal, the Full Court of the Federal Court (Full Court) unanimously overturned the first‑instance decision, finding for the singer and ordering that the KATIE PERRY trade mark registration be cancelled.

At the outset, the Full Court (comprised of Yates, Burley and Rofe JJ) noted the complexity of the dispute before it, remarking [at 4], that “The parties chose to put every conceivably arguable factual and legal contention into issue.”

Ultimately, the Full Court found that:

• by 2008, the singer had acquired a significant reputation in Australia in the name KATY PERRY;
• consumers were likely to be misled or deceived by the designer’s use of KATIE PERRY on clothing; and
• the singer’s use of her stage name amounted to honest concurrent use and was undertaken in good faith.

The Court also held that the singer could rely on the “own name” defence under section 122(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TM Act), even though KATY PERRY was not her birth or legal name.

It is also worth noting the Full Court’s comments in respect of the proposed coexistence arrangement rejected by the designer in 2009. The Full Court stated [at 322] that:

“… the coexistence agreement … would have been an excellent outcome for both parties … having rejected the offer … Ms Taylor has brought this result on herself. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to return to the time of peaceful coexistence.”

The High Court: registration and timing prevail over fame 

Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5 (11 March 2026)

In December 2024, the designer applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court stating that the Full Federal Court’s decision “wrongly privilege(s) the powerful and famous over ordinary traders”. On 11 April 2025, the High Court granted the designer’s leave to appeal, and the parties’ arguments were heard in September 2025. 

On 11 March 2026, the High Court, by majority (3:2), allowed the designer’s appeal, set aside the Full Court’s orders and reinstated the KATIE PERRY trade mark registration. In doing so, the High Court provided important clarification on several aspects of Australian trade mark law.