Two women who share the same name, but come from very different industries, are the protagonists of a legal confrontation in Australia.
One of them is Katie Perryan Australian fashion designer with a registered trademark under his name; The other is Katy Perrythe famous pop singer.
According to The New York Timesthe Superior Court of Australia is reviewing the case, after an appeal court annulled a previous decision in favor of the designer.
The origin of the dispute dates from 2009, when Katy Perry – the singer – achieved an international fame with its success “I KISSED to Girl “ And it was established as an icon in global pop music.
At that time, Katie Perry – the designer – had already registered her brand for a clothing line, after having launched her company in 2006.
Despite the singer’s attempts to reach an agreement with the designer, the negotiations were not fruitful and, in 2019, Katie Perry demanded the singer for registered trademark infraction.
The designer claimed that Katy Perry had violated her registered brand in Australia by selling products from merchandising with his name during his tours of the country. The designer had registered her brand in 2009, before the singer reached fame in Australia, which, according to her, gave her priority over the use of the name in that market.
Meanwhile, Katy Perry representatives said they tried to reach an agreement with the designer, but Katie Perry rejected any offer.
Related: Katy Perry Astronaut! A female crew travels to space in Blue Origin’s NS-31 mission
In 2023, the Federal Court of Australia ruled in favor of the designer, noting that the singer had no commercial rights over the name Katy Perry in regards to fashion and the merchandising In the Australian market, it did not have a relevant reputation in that field at that time.
However, this ruling was appealed and, in 2024, the Court of Appeals annulled the decision, arguing that the registered trademark of Katie Perry should never have been granted.
The case now in the hands of the Superior Court will not only define the fate of a brand, but could sit a key precedent in intellectual property. The resolution will have direct implications for designers, artists and celebrities who share similar names and seek to protect their commercial identity in an increasingly global and competitive market.
In this sense, the judges considered that the singer had a considerable probability of expanding her brand to other commercial areas, such as fashion, which could have caused confusion among consumers.
The Court of Appeals, therefore, invalidated the brand registered by the designer, arguing that the name was so internationally recognized by the singer that its expansion to the sector of the sector merchandising It was inevitable.
However, at a hearing of the Superior Court, Judge Jayne Jagot expressed concern that this decision could sit a dangerous precedent. The final resolution will have direct implications for designers, artists and celebrities who share similar names and seek to protect their commercial identity in an increasingly global and competitive market.
Related: Jack DORSEY says that the intellectual property law should not exist, and Elon Musk agrees: “Eliminate all the laws of Pi”
