Australia: High Court Restores “Katie Perry” Trade Mark in Celebrity Name Dispute
Published 11 March 2026
Matthew Murphy
The High Court of Australia has handed down its decision in Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5, allowing an appeal by Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor and restoring her registered trade mark for “KATIE PERRY” in relation to clothing.The decision overturns a ruling of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia that had cancelled the mark following a challenge brought by companies associated with pop singer Katy Perry. The case provides important guidance on the operation of reputation-based grounds of invalidity under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). Background
Katie Jane Taylor is an Australian fashion designer who performs commercially under the name “Katie Perry”. In 2008, she obtained Australian trade mark registration for KATIE PERRY in respect of clothing in Class 25.
The dispute arose when Taylor commenced proceedings alleging that companies linked to Katy Perry—including Killer Queen LLC—had infringed her trade mark through the sale of clothing merchandise bearing the name “Katy Perry”.
In response, the respondents sought cancellation of Taylor’s trade mark. They argued that the mark should be removed from the register because the singer Katy Perry already had a reputation in Australia at the time the mark was registered, and that the use of “Katie Perry” in connection with clothing would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The primary judge rejected those arguments and upheld Taylor’s registration. However, the Full Federal Court later overturned that decision and ordered that the mark be removed from the register.
Taylor then appealed to the High Court. The Legal Issues
The High Court considered whether Taylor’s trade mark should be cancelled under provisions of the Trade Marks Act allowing rectification of the register.
The respondents relied on two principal arguments:
1. Reputation at the priority date – that the reputation of Katy Perry in Australia at the time of Taylor’s 2008 application meant the mark should not have been registered because its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion (reflecting the principles in s 60 of the Act).
2. Subsequent circumstances – that even if the mark was valid when registered, the later growth of the singer’s reputation meant the mark should now be removed from the register.
Both issues required the Court to assess the extent of the singer’s reputation and whether that reputation would lead consumers to believe clothing sold under the name “Katie Perry” was associated with the celebrity. High Court Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal and restored Taylor’s trade mark registration.
The Court held that the primary judge’s findings regarding the likelihood of deception or confusion were open on the evidence and should not have been disturbed by the Full Federal Court.
In particular, the High Court accepted that while Katy Perry had a reputation in Australia in 2008 as a musical artist, the evidence did not compel the conclusion that Australian consumers would assume clothing branded “Katie Perry” was connected with the singer. The words of Justice Jagot, in the majority, sum up the majority’s view:
“As a result, if such an ordinary person was confronted by the "Katie Perry" trade mark in respect of goods within class 25 in Australia before the priority date used in a normal and fair (and not illegitimate or improper) way as required by the concept of notional use, the reputation in the "Katy Perry" trade mark in Australia in respect of "entertainment" and "recording discs" was such that there was no real and tangible danger of confusion on the part of the ordinary person. It is possible that such a person might momentarily wonder if the "Katie Perry" trade mark was somehow connected to the "Katy Perry" trade mark but, given that no notional normal and fair use of the "Katie Perry" trade mark could extend to any form of trading off the reputation of the "Katy Perry" trade mark, the person would quickly realise in the circumstances, including the absence of any apparent connection with Katy Perry, the pop star, that the clothing was unconnected to Katy Perry, the pop star and trade source of the "Katy Perry" trade mark. The danger of confusion is possible but has not been proved by the Katy Perry parties to be real or tangible. For these reasons, the primary judge's conclusion that the use of the "Katie Perry" trade mark in respect of goods within class 25 would not be likely to deceive or cause confusion because of the reputation that the "Katy Perry" trade mark had acquired in Australia before the priority date as required by s 60 of the TM Act cannot be said to be erroneous.”
Importantly, the Court emphasised that reputation must be assessed at the relevant priority date. Later developments in the singer’s global fame could not retrospectively invalidate an earlier trade mark registration unless the statutory requirements for rectification were clearly met. The Court also rejected the argument that later circumstances alone justified removal of the mark from the register. Justice Steward, in the majority, noted that “For the reasons given by Jagot J, that conclusion was incorrect. However, even assuming the Full Court's conclusion to have been correct, no rectification was justified. That is because if there had been a likelihood of deception or confusion, it would have been the product of the respondents' (in addition to Bravado's) persistent and assiduous infringing of the appellant's registered mark ..” Significance of the Decision The ruling provides useful guidance for trade mark owners and practitioners in several respects.First, it confirms that reputation-based objections under the Trade Marks Act are highly fact-specific and must be assessed at the relevant time, particularly the filing or priority date of the trade mark. Second, the decision highlights the importance of trial-level factual findings in trade mark disputes, especially in relation to consumer perception and likelihood of confusion. Appellate courts will generally be slow to overturn those findings unless a clear error is demonstrated. Third, the case illustrates the complexity of disputes involving personal names and celebrity reputation. A person who legitimately trades under their own name may be able to secure and maintain trade mark protection even where a celebrity with a similar name has an existing reputation. Conclusion The High Court’s decision in Taylor v Killer Queen LLC restores Katie Jane Taylor’s “KATIE PERRY” clothing trade mark and underscores the importance of carefully assessing reputation and consumer confusion at the relevant point in time. For trade mark owners, the case serves as a reminder that earlier rights can remain valid even in the face of later-emerging celebrity fame, provided the statutory requirements for invalidity are not satisfied.
Importantly, the Court emphasised that reputation must be assessed at the relevant priority date. Later developments in the singer’s global fame could not retrospectively invalidate an earlier trade mark registration unless the statutory requirements for rectification were clearly met. The Court also rejected the argument that later circumstances alone justified removal of the mark from the register. Justice Steward, in the majority, noted that “For the reasons given by Jagot J, that conclusion was incorrect. However, even assuming the Full Court's conclusion to have been correct, no rectification was justified. That is because if there had been a likelihood of deception or confusion, it would have been the product of the respondents' (in addition to Bravado's) persistent and assiduous infringing of the appellant's registered mark ..” Significance of the Decision The ruling provides useful guidance for trade mark owners and practitioners in several respects.First, it confirms that reputation-based objections under the Trade Marks Act are highly fact-specific and must be assessed at the relevant time, particularly the filing or priority date of the trade mark. Second, the decision highlights the importance of trial-level factual findings in trade mark disputes, especially in relation to consumer perception and likelihood of confusion. Appellate courts will generally be slow to overturn those findings unless a clear error is demonstrated. Third, the case illustrates the complexity of disputes involving personal names and celebrity reputation. A person who legitimately trades under their own name may be able to secure and maintain trade mark protection even where a celebrity with a similar name has an existing reputation. Conclusion The High Court’s decision in Taylor v Killer Queen LLC restores Katie Jane Taylor’s “KATIE PERRY” clothing trade mark and underscores the importance of carefully assessing reputation and consumer confusion at the relevant point in time. For trade mark owners, the case serves as a reminder that earlier rights can remain valid even in the face of later-emerging celebrity fame, provided the statutory requirements for invalidity are not satisfied.