An international pop star battles a local fashion designer over a name they both claim—what’s at stake goes far beyond celebrity drama.
One is an international pop star who just went to space. The other is a fashion designer. A court in Australia will decide which of the two has the right to claim the name.
Katie Perry, an Australian designer with an eponymous fashion label, has argued for years that Katheryn Hudson—the international superstar known almost everywhere as Katy Perry—has infringed her trademark.
Her case has gone through Australian courts for more than five years, with mixed results. The designer won in 2023, but an appeals court overturned that decision last year, seemingly settling the dispute.
Now, Australia’s High Court—the country’s highest judicial authority—is reviewing the conflict, suggesting that the appeals court may have relied on a flawed assumption about celebrity reputation that could endanger Australian trademarks.
“This is the story of two women, two teenage dreams, and one name,” an Australian judge said in 2023.
But the case has broader implications, raising questions about fame and the many ways celebrities generate income.
The conflict between the two Perrys first arose around 2009, a year after the American singer released her hit debut single, “I Kissed a Girl.” The singer’s representatives say they tried to reach an agreement with the designer about using their similar names, but that she refused. The designer claims she never received any offer.
Katie Perry, the designer, says she launched her brand in 2006, started working on it full-time in 2007, applied for one of her trademarks in 2008, and registered it in 2009—all before the singer became widely known in Australia.
A decade later, she sued Katy Perry, alleging that clothing sales during one of the singer’s Australian tours infringed her trademark.
The designer initially won. A judge ruled that the American celebrity had no fashion-related reputation at the time the designer applied for the trademark. That meant the singer had no superior right to her stage name when it came to clothing sales, and the judge concluded that some merchandise sold during the tour did, in fact, infringe on the designer’s trademark.
But last year, an appeals court overturned that decision—and went even further: the judges said Katie Perry’s trademark should never have been granted in the first place, and ordered its cancellation.
According to them, the pop star already had a reputation when the designer applied for her trademark, making it likely that the celebrity would expand into merchandise, and that the Australian brand could confuse consumers.
By deciding to reopen the case, the High Court expressed concern that the appeals court’s decision, though seemingly harmless, could actually have set a troubling precedent.
“The logic of the appeals court is far more significant than seems to have been understood,” said Justice Jayne Jagot during a hearing last week, shortly before she and her colleagues agreed to review the designer’s appeal—something experts say happens in only about 10% of cases submitted.
The judges questioned the appeals court’s reasoning, suggesting it relied on a problematic premise: that famous artists inevitably expand their brands. They pondered how broad that criteria might be, and whether such logic required the ability to predict the future.
“If someone is famous enough, the ability to monetize extends in all kinds of directions—not just clothing: whiskey, wine, makeup,” said Justice Jagot. “It becomes hard to imagine a commercial activity that wouldn’t be covered.” She added that a celebrity could even expand into medical or dental services, like “Katy Perry Invisalign, or whatever.”
Justice Simon Steward agreed, saying there also seemed to be an implicit assumption that the star’s brand would continue to succeed, grow, and generate income indefinitely—something hard to foresee.
“How could anyone know back then that she would remain successful?” he asked the celebrity’s lawyer, Matthew Darke.
Darke insisted—repeatedly—that there was no broader legal issue at stake. He denied that the appeals court had made errors.
“It was perfectly appropriate for the court to reason as it did, and there’s no mistake,” he said.
The judges weren’t convinced and called for a new round in this long-running dispute.
In its deliberations, the High Court will have to decide exactly what Katy Perry was famous for around 2008, and whether it mattered if she had a fashion-related reputation—or if simply being well-known was enough. The decision will shape how similar cases are litigated and resolved in the future.
And yes, similar cases do exist.
For example, Burger King operates in Australia as Hungry Jack’s because another restaurant already owned the rights to the “Burger King” name when the franchise arrived in the country.
Gregory Pieris, a partner specializing in intellectual property at K&L Gates in Melbourne, Australia, noted that there are “many cases” where someone in Australia tries to register a trademark identical to a global brand. What happens next between Katy Perry and Katie Perry will influence how future cases like this are handled, Pieris said.
