Sydney, Australia, Mar 11 (EFE).-
Australian fashion designer Katie Perry won her long-running trademark dispute Wednesday against U.S. pop star Katy Perry, after the High Court of Australia ruled that the designer’s registered brand does not infringe trademark law.
In a majority decision, the court held that the designer’s trademark for her clothing label does not breach trademark legislation and is unlikely to confuse consumers or damage the singer’s reputation, according to the ruling published Wednesday.
The dispute dates back to 2009, when the American artist was preparing for her Australian tour, “Hello Katy.” The designer, who sells clothing under her birth name, argued at the time that the singer’s sale of tour merchandise — including apparel, footwear and hats — infringed her registered trademark in Australia.
The case gained new momentum in 2019, when the designer took the matter to the Federal Court of Australia, arguing that merchandise sold during the singer’s tours violated her intellectual property rights.
At issue was who had the right to market clothing under the names Katie Perry or Katy Perry. The singer, whose real name is Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson, adopted her stage name toward 2001.
Court proceedings showed that the designer applied to register her brand without initially knowing about the singer. According to the ruling, she later became aware of the artist after hearing the song “I Kissed a Girl,” which propelled the singer to international fame.
The designer initially won the case in the Federal Court, but that decision was overturned on appeal. Appellate judges found that the singer already had an established reputation in Australia before the clothing brand was launched and that the designer’s trademark registration could therefore be canceled.
Lawyers for the singer argued before the High Court that the stage name Katy Perry could not be separated from the commercial reputation attached to it.
The High Court rejected that argument, ruling that the designer’s use of the trademark on clothing was neither misleading nor likely to cause confusion in the Australian market. The court also ordered the singer to pay the legal costs.
The case has become one of Australia’s most closely watched trademark disputes involving public figures and businesses, amid a growing number of legal battles over the commercial use of celebrity-linked names.
In recent years, similar conflicts have included one involving U.S. rapper Eminem, born Marshall B. Mathers III, who took legal action against Australian company Swim Shady, arguing the name falsely suggested an association with his alter ego, Slim Shady. EFE
emg/lds
