The Legal Light Justin Stack Aussie Katie slays US star Katy in High Court In a trade mark victory for Australian small business, Australian fashion designer Katie Perry defeated American pop superstar Katy Perry in the High Court over who had rights to the name. The High Court rejected a long-held claim by the US singer that the designer was infringing on her trade mark by labelling her clothes with the Katie Perry name. The singer had demanded the design- er cancel her label. Singer Katy Perry has her own clothing line, and her lawyers argued the Aussie Katie Perry label would confuse people. Intellectual property lawyer at Stacks Law Firm, Christopher Morris, said it was rewarding to see a small business take on a big international corpora- tion and win in Australia's highest court. "It was a real David versus Goliath legal battle, and the little Aussie battler won. It shows small businesses can stand up to a huge corporation in court, where arguments must be based on law." "The case had been fought in courts for 17 years and Aussie Katie took the case all the way to the High Court, where she finally won the right to stick her name on her clothing." "As the High Court judges pointed out, designer Katie Perry was born with that name, while singer Katheryn Hudson uses 'Katy Perry' as a stage name." The legal argument centred on whether US Katy could demand cancellation of the "Katie Perry" trade mark under section 88 of the Common- wealth Trade Marks Act 1995 because it would be likely to "deceive or cause confusion" with the singer's trade mark "Katy Perry". Katie applied to trade mark "Katie Perry" for her clothes on 29 September 2008. Katy Perry sought Australian trade mark registration of "Katy Perry" on 26 June 2009. Within months, her firm Killer Queen sent "cease and desist letters to Katie Perry to stop using that name. Katie refused and in 2023 the Federal Court ruled the singer had infringed on Katie Perry's trade mark, as she was the first to register the name. Katy Perry's firm appealed and won in 2024 in the full Federal Court, which ordered Katie Perry to cancel her trade mark. Katie appealed to the High Court, which in March 2026 ruled three to two in her favour. The judges found that even though the singer had a global hit with "I kissed a girl" in 2008, she did not have a reputation for clothing when Katie got her trade mark. The singer failed to prove there was any real confusion. The High Court ruled the US star, worth about $500 million, would pay Katie Perry's legal costs. STACKS LAW FIRM Diane Branch Compensation Specialist No Win, No Fee Conditions apply 02 6592 6592 taree.stacklaw.com.au Partners in life The Legal Light Justin Stack Aussie Katie slays US star Katy in High Court In a trade mark victory for Australian small business , Australian fashion designer Katie Perry defeated American pop superstar Katy Perry in the High Court over who had rights to the name . The High Court rejected a long - held claim by the US singer that the designer was infringing on her trade mark by labelling her clothes with the Katie Perry name . The singer had demanded the design- er cancel her label . Singer Katy Perry has her own clothing line , and her lawyers argued the Aussie Katie Perry label would confuse people . Intellectual property lawyer at Stacks Law Firm , Christopher Morris , said it was rewarding to see a small business take on a big international corpora- tion and win in Australia's highest court . " It was a real David versus Goliath legal battle , and the little Aussie battler won . It shows small businesses can stand up to a huge corporation in court , where arguments must be based on law . " " The case had been fought in courts for 17 years and Aussie Katie took the case all the way to the High Court , where she finally won the right to stick her name on her clothing . " " As the High Court judges pointed out , designer Katie Perry was born with that name , while singer Katheryn Hudson uses ' Katy Perry ' as a stage name . " The legal argument centred on whether US Katy could demand cancellation of the " Katie Perry " trade mark under section 88 of the Common- wealth Trade Marks Act 1995 because it would be likely to " deceive or cause confusion " with the singer's trade mark " Katy Perry " . Katie applied to trade mark " Katie Perry " for her clothes on 29 September 2008. Katy Perry sought Australian trade mark registration of " Katy Perry " on 26 June 2009. Within months , her firm Killer Queen sent " cease and desist letters to Katie Perry to stop using that name . Katie refused and in 2023 the Federal Court ruled the singer had infringed on Katie Perry's trade mark , as she was the first to register the name . Katy Perry's firm appealed and won in 2024 in the full Federal Court , which ordered Katie Perry to cancel her trade mark . Katie appealed to the High Court , which in March 2026 ruled three to two in her favour . The judges found that even though the singer had a global hit with " I kissed a girl " in 2008 , she did not have a reputation for clothing when Katie got her trade mark . The singer failed to prove there was any real confusion . The High Court ruled the US star , worth about $ 500 million , would pay Katie Perry's legal costs . STACKS LAW FIRM Diane Branch Compensation Specialist No Win , No Fee Conditions apply 02 6592 6592 taree.stacklaw.com.au Partners in life