“Katie Perry” Prevails: High Court Defines the Boundaries of Reputation-Based Trade Mark Claims

Australian fashion designer Katie Perry has prevailed in a long-running trade mark dispute with international popstar Katy Perry, with the High Court confirming that her registered mark ‘Katie Perry’ does not infringe on the singer’s rights.

Katie Jane Taylor has sold clothing under the label, “Katie Perry,” since 2006 and registered the trade mark in 2008 under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).

At the time of registration, Taylor was unaware of the singer. Shortly after, Katy Perry (legal name Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson) rose to international fame and gained significant recognition. In 2009, the singer opposed the designer’s registration and separately applied to register “Katy Perry” in Australia. This application was later amended to exclude clothing.

The dispute continued for over a decade. In 2019, the designer commenced infringement proceedings in the Federal Court, while the singer cross-claimed for cancellation of the mark, arguing her reputation in Australia predated its registration.

Ultimately, the matter reached the High Court of Australia.

Australian trade mark law is governed by the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), which establishes a system for registering and protecting distinctive marks used in trade, and registering exclusive rights in relation to goods or services.

A significant issue in infringement and cancellation disputes is whether the use of the mark is likely to mislead or confuse consumers.

In Taylor v Killer Queen LLC, the Court also considered principles from Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Allergen Australia Pty Ltd, which emphasise that confusion must be assessed practically, having regard to the character of the customers who would likely buy the goods. The threshold of confusion does not require actual confusion, but the mere possibility is not enough. The principle is put simply in Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1953), there must be a ‘real likelihood that some people will wonder about whether two sets of products come from the same source.’

Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5

The central question of the matter was whether the designer’s trade mark should be revoked on the basis of the singer’s prior reputation.

The Court assessed whether the use of ‘Katie Perry’ on clothing would be likely to deceive or cause confusion. Importantly, the Court declined to extend the singer’s reputation beyond the scope of her established commercial activities. While celebrities often sell merchandise, the Court found that this does not automatically establish a reputation in the Australian industry.

Applying the concept of normal and fair use, the Court held that any risk of confusion must be real and tangible. Despite the similarity in names, they concluded that consumers were unlikely to believe that the designer’s clothing brand was associated with the singer.

Notably, the decision was split, with two judges dissenting.

A favourable alternative for both parties may have been a mutually beneficial coexistence arrangement – however, this was rejected by Taylor in 2009.

This decision provides important guidance for trade mark owners, particularly within creative industries.

In particular:

• Timing and registration: Early registration and genuine use in Australia can outweigh later claims based on reputation. Further, the High Court’s decision aligns with one of the primary purposes of the Trade Marks Act, which is to protect consumers from confusion.
• Reputation is not universal: A well-known personal brand does not automatically extend across all product categories. Both section 60 of the Act and this present case confirm that, notwithstanding the common practice of singers releasing merchandise, such conduct does not automatically extend trade mark rights into the clothing industry – regardless of reputation.
• Fame may reduce confusion: The High Court concluded that, in fact, the singer’s distinct reputation made confusion less likely. This confers a greater protection for small, local artists in trade mark disputes, where the popularity and social standing of their opponent is not always considered a disadvantage.
• Focus on commercial context: The decision clarifies that the assessment of consumer confusion must be grounded in realistic commercial circumstances, as opposed to mere assumptions regarding celebrity influence.

Overall, the ruling reinforces that Australian trade mark law prioritises consumer protection and clarity in defined markets, rather than deferring to global fame.

If you are looking for assistance with registering a trade mark or disputing infringement of your existing mark, contact our Intellectual Property team at Sanicki Lawyers.