Australia's Katie Perry lost a 15-year legal battle to Katy Perry. She's just been thrown a lifeline.

Last year, Katy Perry (real name: Katheryn Hudson), an international popstar, won a trademark battle, marking the end of a 15-year legal feud. The opponent? Katie Perry (married name: Katie Taylor), an Australian fashion designer.

Now, in 2025, Australian Katie has been thrown a lifeline. She's convinced the High Court to hear her case.

(Bear with us, there is a lot to unpack here.)

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 American singer Katy, she reportedly 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 denied there was an offer of a 'coexistence agreement.' Read more here.

In 2019, the Aussie Katie sued the US Katy, for selling 'Katy Perry' merchandise during two tours in Australia. Originally, she won the case and damages were awarded against Katy Perry's merchandising company.

In November 2024, three appeal judges overturned this ruling.

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

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. They said the 'Katie Perry' trademark had been applied for when Taylor 'already knew' of the singer's reputation, in 2008, 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."

In response to Perry's successful appeal, Taylor's 'Katie Perry' trademark was cancelled, and she had to pay costs for the appeal.

The Australian designer said she "lost everything", in this decision.

"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."

You can read our exclusive interview with Katie Perry, here.

The judges ruled, "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]'."

Back to the courtroom.

Five months on from the November 2024 appeal, and the issue is once again back in the courtroom.

Aussie Katie scored a legal win on Friday when the High Court agreed to hear the case in a special leave application hearing in Sydney. This will allow her to try to overturn the Full Federal Court judgment from November.

On Friday, her barrister Christian Dimitriadis SC said the appeal judges had erred in their interpretation of Australian trademark law.

Just because Perry had a reputation as a pop star at the time the Katie Perry trademark was registered did not mean she also had a reputation for selling clothing at the time, he argued.

High Court Justice Jayne Jagot questioned this on Friday.

"If you're sufficiently famous, the capacity is to monetise in all kinds of directions, not just clothing," she said. The logic that celebrities could use their reputation to expand into nearly any field could also impact Australians selling products ranging from whisky to perfume, the judge said.

Taylor's barrister said that she had been misfortunate, to choose a trademark similar to someone who became famous, and someone who would later sell clothing in Australia knowing she was infringing on the mark.

He said that the Full Court's decision to deregister the Katie Perry brand because it found the designer applied for the trademark knowing of the US singer's reputation was incorrect.

Perry's barrister Matthew Darke SC unsuccessfully argued that the High Court should not hear the case as it did not involve an important question of law.

The matter will be heard in the High Court in the second half of 2025.

Taylor declined to comment on the case after the hearing.

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

So, what happened in the previous court rulings?

It all began in 2009, when Taylor applied for her trademark 'Katie Perry'. It's important to note that Katy Perry's breakout song 'I Kissed A Girl' topped the Billboard charts in June 2008.

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 tour in 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.

The first court ruling, in April 2023, was mostly in favour of designer Katie Jane Taylor (née Perry), but rejected claims that her trademark was infringed through clothing sold at Target and Myer, or websites like Amazon and eBay.

It found the merchandise firm owned by Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson, better known as Katy Perry, liable for infringing the trademark 'Katie Perry'.

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

A few months later, in June 2023, Katy Perry appealed the decision — leading to new results in November 2024.

The Full Federal Court overturned the April ruling, cancelling Taylor's trademark 'Katie Perry', and ordering her to pay the costs of the appeal. They said that Katy Perry had used her stage name since 2002 and had an international reputation before the 'Katie Perry' trademark was registered. They added that the 'own name' defence applies, as Katy Perry used her name in good faith.

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.

We will keep this article updated as it goes to the High Court.

- with AAP.

Feature image: Instagram/katieperry.clothing, 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 ➤