'I've lost everything.' The 15-year dispute between Katy Perry and Australia's Katie Perry has ended.

Katy Perry, an international popstar, has won a trademark battle, marking the end of a 15-year legal feud. The opponent? Katie Perry, an Australian fashion designer.

(Bear with me, this might get confusing.)

Back in 2019, the Aussie Katie (real name, Katie Jane Taylor) sued the US Katy (real name, Katheryn Hudson), for selling 'Katy Perry' merchandise in Australia.

This month, three appeal judges overturned a 2023 ruling that favoured the Australian designer.

The court heard the singer Perry, whose real name is Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson, had "honestly adopted" the Katy Perry moniker in 2002, five years prior to Taylor starting her own fashion label under the name Katie Perry.

The judges found the 'Katie Perry' trademark had been applied for when Taylor 'already knew' of the singer's reputation, SBS reported.

The judges noted that Perry used her name as a trademark in good faith during the 2014 Prism tour and had been doing so for five years before Taylor launched her own business.

The judges stated that Perry was entitled to use the name in Australia because of her "international reputation in her name in music and entertainment if not more broadly."

The judges found that Taylor only applied for her trademark after Perry's brand was already created, and this could lead to "consumers potentially being deceived or confused."

In response to Perry's successful appeal, Taylor was ordered for her trademark to be deregistered.

The Australian designer says she has "lost everything." You can read our exclusive interview with Katie Perry, here.

Katy Perry at an event in 2024. Image: Getty.

"Whilst some die-hard fans of [the singer] may recognise the incorrect spelling, the ordinary consumer with an imperfect recollection … would be likely to be confused as to the source of the item and wonder whether it was associated with [the performer'," the judges ruled.

In 2009, Taylor applied for a trademark of 'Katie Perry' for clothing. She has sold clothing under this label since 2007.

When it was brought to the attention of the singer, she told her agent to "keep her out of it" and they offered to coexist.

Taylor initially rejected the singer's offer for a "coexistence agreement," which the judges considered a mistake.

"[Having] rejected the offer, Ms Taylor then chose to commence infringement proceedings," they said.

"In that sense, Ms Taylor has brought this result on herself. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to return to the time of peaceful coexistence."

In our interview with Taylor, she denies there was an offer of a 'coexistence agreement.' Read more here.

The Sydney-based designer spoke to The New York Post about the outcome of the appeal. "I have lost everything, including my trademark. As you can imagine I'm devastated," she said.

"What do I do now? I will dust myself off and figure what the next steps are. Perhaps move to somewhere in the world where the name Katie Perry has no meaning."

US singer Katy Perry has been triumphant. Image: Getty.

So, what happened in the previous court ruling?

Back in April 2023, the Federal Court found a firm owned by Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson, better known as Katy Perry, was liable for infringing the trademark of local designer Katie Jane Taylor (nee Perry).

It all began in 2009, when Taylor applied for her trademark.

Perry's lawyers initially challenged the claim, prompting Taylor to share a YouTube video asking Perry to allow them both to 'live their dreams'. Perry's team later withdrew their opposition and Taylor's trademark was granted.

Years later, Perry used her name to sell merchandise while on tours to Australia in 2014 and 2018.

In 2019, Taylor initiated legal proceedings against Perry for trademark infringement, claiming 'Katy Perry' is 'substantially identical or deceptively similar' to 'Katie Perry'. She says this came off the back of people seeing 'Katy Perry' branded clothes in stores like Target.

In court, emails between Perry and her manager Steven Jensen, in which Perry disparaged Taylor, were shown.

In the emails, Perry wrote "dumb b*tch" and "this b*tch won't stop", referring to Taylor's trademark application.

Jensen said it was an emotional response, not directed at Taylor personally.

"Katy Perry is an artist. Artists are emotional people. Emotions are what drive their talent," he said.

A 2023 judge ruled mostly in Taylor's favour, but rejected further claims that her trademark was infringed through clothing sold at Target and Myer and websites such as Amazon and eBay.

Justice Brigette Markovic described the case as a "tale of two women, two teenage dreams and one name" in her ruling.

But in June 2023, Perry appealed the decision — leading to new results in November 2024.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Sustainable Basics 🇦🇺 (@katieperry.clothing)

In an interview with A Current Affair, Taylor described the appeal and the case in general as a "David and Goliath case".

"I've done exactly what the government told me to; register your business name, get an ABN, get a trademark, I've done all those things," Taylor said.

"That's why this case has felt so wrong, because I've done everything I was supposed to do and then an overseas conglomerate can come to Australia and say, 'Well I'm bigger, I've got more money, and I'm going to crush you', [it] is wrong."

Taylor said she would keep fighting the case. "I'm not going to give up because ultimately I believe in truth and justice and I believe why I am doing this," she said.

- with AAP.

Feature image: Channel Nine/Getty.

This article was originally published on June 15, 2023 and has since been updated with new information.

Are you someone who values beauty, health, and self-care? Take our short survey to go in the running to win a $50 gift voucher!

TAKE SURVEY ➤