An Australian court has ruled that pop superstar Katy Perry has infringed the trademark of a Sydney-based fashion designer by selling clothing under the name “Katy Perry” to Australian customers during her concert tours in the country. The lawsuit was filed by Katie Taylor in 2019, who alleged that the singer ignored the trademark and sold the clothing through retailers and websites.
In a ruling by Federal court judge Brigitte Markovic, it was determined that Katy Perry’s company Kitty Purry partially infringed the trademark of Katie Taylor’s business, which primarily sells clothes online. This was due to the promotion of the singer’s products through posts on social media. However, damages are yet to be decided and will be announced at a later date.
Judge Markovic made a reference to “a tale of two women, two teenage dreams and one name” in her judgment. The judge also dismissed Katy Perry’s attempt to cancel the Katie Perry trademark.
Katie Taylor, who uses her birth name for her fashion brand, called the verdict a “David and Goliath” win for small businesses, particularly women-owned businesses who may be up against larger overseas entities. She expressed her gratitude for the victory in a blog post.
Representatives for Katy Perry have not yet responded to the ruling.
The conflict between the popstar and the Australian fashion designer began in 2008 when Taylor registered the “Katie Perry” brand in Australia. Katy Perry initially attempted to block the registration, but later sought to force the designer to cease and desist from using the mark. However, this move was eventually abandoned.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of trademark protection in the fashion industry, particularly for small businesses. The case highlights the need for businesses to be diligent in their research and registration of trademarks to avoid potential legal disputes.
The use of social media to promote products has become an increasingly important aspect of business strategy. However, this ruling also suggests that companies need to be careful when using social media to promote products that may infringe on existing trademarks.
The decision will likely have broader implications for the fashion industry as a whole, particularly concerning the use of celebrity names in branding. The ruling reinforces the importance of brand protection and may prompt other businesses to take legal action to protect their intellectual property.
In conclusion, this ruling in favor of Katie Taylor serves as a reminder of the importance of trademark protection for small businesses in the fashion industry. It also highlights the potential risks associated with using social media to promote products that may infringe on existing trademarks. The broader implications of this ruling may prompt other businesses to take legal action to protect their intellectual property.