Mexico City.- Almost as soon as Katy Perry returned from a brief trip to space with a group organized by Jeff Bezos’s fiancee, Lauren Sanchez, the derogatory comments began.
“One thing was to understand in an intellectual way that the publicized trip to the ‘female’ space of Katy Perry, Gayle King and Lauren Sanchez in a rocket of Blue Origin, in reality, would only last a few disappointing 11 minutes, but another very different was to see him develop during a live broadcast of several hours, which culminated with Perry kissing the earth as a soldier who returns from the war and not as a multimillion He returns from the shortest trip in the world for an influencer, “Heather Schwedel wrote on the Slate site.
Ellen Cushing, who writes for The Atlantic, proclaimed Katy as the “perfect pop star for absurd acrobatics.” Several celebrities, such as actress Olivia Wilde and model Emily Ratajkowski, criticized her and the Blue Origin flight. Until Wendy’s account in X he attacked it with publications such as “Can we send it back?” At first glance, this seemed a bit strange. Why did a fast food chain published sarcasm on a pop star that went to space?
But more than a decade after the singer -songwriter Perry described Katy’s music as microwave popcorn, one might ask if Wendy’s publications were an old empty calorie supplier who fought with another.
After all, Katy is the singer who in her video “California Gurls” (2010) wore a support that looked like giant cupcakes and that in the end spatted whipped cream (the idea was in the letter: “we melt your palette”). Shortly after he threw the single “Last friday night (TGIF)”, a hymn about the joy of waking after a weekend spree. “There is a stranger in my bed,” he sang. “My head hurts. Brillantina throughout the room. Pink flamenco in the pool.” The comedian and actor Rob Delaney wrote a humorous article for Vice on the subject, and responded to the letter “Is it a pacifier or a bruise?” saying: “Wait! There is a big difference,” and asked: “Did you give you the aforementioned ‘unknown’ a punch in the neck?” Katy, in case it is something, has supported other artists for years. Often, these have refused to return the favor. For example, Robyn, the Scandinavian priestess of the pleasure dance-pop, who opened Katy on her 2011 tour promoting “Last friday night (TGIF)” and “California Gurls”. When Time Out New York asked Robyn if he was a Perry fan, he said, laughing: “Do you know what? I have to leave.”
Destroy ‘143’
Of course, artists have room to mature and grow. Compare, for example, the Beyoncé de Destiny’s Child with that of Lemonade, Renaissance and Cowboy Carter. But Katy’s attempts to expand artistically have been limited, above all, to imitate the work of other women most acclaimed in music and to receive criticism for it. “A new Billie Eilish song by Katy Perry. A new Spotifycore song with Norwegian airs by Katy Perry. A new Haim song by Katy Perry. A new Pink song by Katy Perry. A new Bubble-Pop song by Taylor Swift by Katy Perry. A new song by Mumford & Sons by Katy Perry. New song by Abba by Katy Perry, “wrote Jon Caramanica, critic of The New York Times, in his 2019 song review,” Never Really Over “. In fact, “Never Really Over” was inspired so much on a 2017 song, “Love You Like That”, by Norway Dagny, which Dagny ended up appearing in the composition loans. Promoting the single in an event in Shanghai, he wore his metal pleissed dress before a wind machine that turned his huge blonde extensions into a mobile object, just like Madonna did in the 1995 Brit Awards, with his pleated silver dress before a wind machine that moved its huge blonde extensions. In 2024, Katy returned with a new album, 143, whose title, according to her, represented her “angelic number.” The first single was “Woman’s World”, and in the video it appears with a red and white handkerchief like Rosie The Riveter (the riveter). Then, the camera made a pano and showed it with Short to Daisy Duke and a bikini top with the US flag, which barely hid his breasts. His letter speaks of how he felt: “Sexy, confident in herself, so intelligent.” To prove it, Katy poured whiskey in the mouth, spilling it. The song was co -written and co -produced by the American blockbuster Dr. Luke, who in 2014 was accused by Kesha of inappropriate sexual behavior. During the following nine years, Kesha and Luke exchanged demands before reaching an extrajudicial agreement. The criticisms of 143 were devastating. In Metacritic they qualify it with 37 out of 100, to be the worst album valued on the site since 2011 and the album of a woman with worse reviews in the 24 years of the web. Rich Judge said in Pitchfork that “the material here is so devoid of any distinctive element that makes it suspect that it is a joke or cynical attempt to reach the end of the exaggerated, of something so bad that is good.”
Demanded in Australia … by Katie Perry
One is an international pop star. The other, a clothing designer. An Australian court will decide who can claim his name. Katie Perry, Australian designer with a homonymous fashion brand, has been stating that Katheryn Hudson, the superstar known worldwide as Katy Perry, has violated her registered trademark. His case has more than five years in Australia courts, with disparate results. The designer won in 2023, but an appeal court revoked the decision in 2024, apparently solving the matter. Now, the Superior Court of Australia, the one with the highest rank, is reviewing the controversy, suggesting that the Court of Appeals could have been based on an erroneous premise about fame that could threaten Australian brands. “This is the story of two women, two teenage dreams and a name,” said a judge in 2023. But the case has broader implications and raises questions about the reputation and the multiple ways in which the celebrities are enriched. The problem between the two emerged around 2009, a year after the American singer launched her successful debut single, “I kissed to Girl”. His representatives claim that they contacted the designer to reach an agreement on the use of her similar nicknames, and that she rejected it. For her part, she states that she never received an offer. Katie says she launched her brand in 2006, she began working on her full -time in 2007, requested one of her brands registered in 2008 and registered it in 2009. That was all, she says, before the singer triumphed in Australia. A decade later he sued Katy Perry, claiming that the sales of clothing on a tour of Australia violated the registered trademark of the designer. Katie won his initial case. A judge ruled that the singer had no reputation in the fashion sector when the Australian requested the registered trademark. That meant that Katy had no right to claim his artistic name regarding the sale of clothing, and the judge determined that some articles sold during his tour infringed the designer’s mark. But last year, a Court of Appeals revoked the decision, and, in an unexpected turn, it was one step further: the judges also ruled that the registered trademark Katie Perry should never have granted and ordered the cancellation of it. Katy already had a reputation when the designer requested her brand, they said, which made the singer expand to the product market and that the Australian brand could confuse consumers. When reviewing the case, the Superior Court expressed concern that the decision, apparently Anodine, of the Court of Appeals could, in fact, sit a worrying precedent. What follows from the logic of the Court of Appeals “is much more significant than it seems to have appreciated,” said the Jayne Jagot Superior Court judge at a hearing last week, shortly before her and her colleagues agreed to the application of the designer to listen to her appeal, something that they do only in about 10 percent of the cases presented to them, according to experts. The judges questioned the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, suggesting that it had been based on a potentially problematic proposition: that artists would expand their marks. They reflected on their possible reach and if this approach also required the ability to foresee the future. “If you are famous enough, you can monetize in all kinds of addresses, not only in clothes, but whiskey, wine, makeup,” Jagot said. “It’s hard to imagine a commercial activity that is not covered.” He added that a celebrity could even expand to medical or dental services, such as “Katy Perry Invisalign, or whatever.” Judge Simon Steward agreed and said that there was also an implicit evaluation that the star’s brand would continue to succeed, expand and monetize indefinitely, which would have been difficult to determine. “How could you know that I would continue to succeed at that time?” He asked the celebrity representative, Matthew Darke. Darke insisted, again and again, that there was no legal issue with broader consequences. He denied that the Court of Appeals had made mistakes: “It is perfectly appropriate for the Court to reason as it did, and there is no error,” he said. The judges were not convinced and asked for a new round in this long dispute. In its deliberations, the Superior Court must decide why it was famous Katy Perry around 2008 and if it mattered if it had a reputation in the fashion sector or if it was simply famous. The decision will determine how similar cases will be litigated and resolved. And similar cases arise. For example, Burger King operates in Australia as Hungry Jack’s because another restaurant already had the copyright of Burger King when the franchise opened its doors in the country. Gregory Pieris, intellectual property partner of K & L Gates in Melbourne, said there were “many cases” in which someone in Australia tried to register a brand identical to that of an international brand. What happens next with Katy Perry and Katie Perry will influence future cases, Pieris said.
