After an epic 17 years, on 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia delivered its judgement in Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5, bringing the final chapter of a trade mark battle between Katie Taylor (Ms Taylor), an Australian fashion designer trading under the name “Katie Perry”, and Katheryn Hudson (Ms Hudson), the internationally renowned pop star known as “Katy Perry” to a close.
In this final decision, the High Court found in favour of Ms Taylor, allowing her to retain the registration of her “Katie Perry” trade mark on the Register and finding that Ms Hudson’s companies’ use of “Katy Perry” as a trade mark had infringed Ms Taylor’s trade mark and therefore would be held liable for trade mark infringement.
How did this 17-year trade mark battle begin?
In 2007, Ms Taylor started using her birth name “Katie Perry” as her fashion label, registering both the business and domain name. Subsequently in September 2008 she filed an application for the trade mark registration of “Katie Perry” in class 25 for clothing (this was a few months after the release of Ms Hudson’s hit debut single).
Ms Taylor’s application was accepted by IP Australia and officially recorded in the Australian Trade Marks Register in July 2009, after an opposition filed by Ms Hudson’s lawyers in May 2009 was withdrawn.
However, as Ms Hudson’s popularity increased across the globe (including Australia), she applied for the registration of the “Katy Perry” trade mark in June 2009, covering classes 9 and 41 which encompassed music-related goods and services (not clothing).
Over the following years, Ms Hudson undertook a global tour, which included the sale of supporting merchandise such as “Katy Perry” branded clothing via an online store. In response to this store, Ms Taylor sued the singer in the federal court in 2019, alleging her trade mark had been infringed upon by the sale of “Katy Perry” branded clothing during the Australian leg of her tour.
Ms Hudson responded with a request for the cancellation of Ms Taylor’s trade mark, stating that she already had a big enough reputation in Australia in 2008 and that Ms Taylor’s label would be “likely to deceive or cause confusion”.
During this lengthy legal battle, Ms. Taylor won in the first instance, lost on appeal, then won in the High Court. Outlined below is a timeline of this trade mark dispute:
Katie VS Katy: A timeline of a trade mark dispute
2008: A Trade Mark Is Registered
-
-
- Ms Taylor files an application for the trade mark registration of “Katie Perry” in class 25 for clothing.
-
2009: The Battle Begins
-
-
- Ms Hudson files a notice of opposition to Ms Taylor’s trade mark application and sends a cease-and-desist letter.
- A few months later, Ms Hudson withdraws the opposition proceedings, and Ms Taylor’s trade mark is registered.
- Ms Hudson proposes a co-existence agreement that is rejected by Ms Taylor.
-
2009-2018: The tour merchandise
-
-
- During this period, Ms Hudson’s fame grows significantly, and she undertakes several international tours that include Australian venues.
- She sets up an online merchandise outlet, which sells her “Katy Perry” branded merchandise at the concert venues through her associated companies Killer Queen LLC, Kitty Purry Inc. and Purrfect Ventures.
-
2019: The Infringement
-
-
- Ms Taylor commences legal proceedings against Ms Hudson and her companies for trade mark infringement by selling or authorising the sale of “Katy Perry” merchandise.
- Ms Hudson’s team files a crossclaim seeking to cancel Ms Taylor’s trade mark, arguing it was likely to deceive or cause confusion due to the singer’s reputation.
-
2023: Round One (Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5)
-
-
- The Australian designer wins her infringement case.
- The court rules that Ms Hudson’s company had infringed the clothing trade mark through merchandise sales during the tour and dismisses their cross claim to cancel the trade mark.
-
2024: Round Two (Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2024] FCAFC 149
-
- Upon appeal, the Full Court of the Federal Court overturns the initial ruling.
- It finds that Ms Taylor’s “Katie Perry” trade mark should be de-registered as its use would likely cause confusion given Ms Hudson’s reputation.
2025-2026: Round 3 (Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5)
-
-
- The High Court rules in favour of Ms. Taylor.
- It reinstates her trade mark registration and rejects the argument that Ms Hudson’s fame in Australia made confusion likely for clothing goods.
- The matter is remitted to the Full Court to determine unresolved issues, including the relief to be granted, the amount of any damages, and costs.
-
This trade mark dispute and the varying decisions made during each phase demonstrates just how subjective trade mark cases can be. Whilst one could surmise that this particular trade mark case is unique because it is a battle between a local designer and global popstar, the reality is that the inherent lessons of this dispute are applicable to a range of individuals and business, from multinational brands to Australian SMEs and start-ups.
At its core, this trade mark case is a sage reminder that it is equally as important to register your trade mark for category-correct protection when starting a business, as well as when you are looking to expand into new categories. Last but not least, it also serves as a slight prod that trade mark rights can be determined by registration and priority dates – not simply by global fame or one’s name.
What are the trade mark lessons from Taylor v Killer Queen?
1. Timing is everything
Registering a trade mark as soon as it is possible is one of the most effective ways to protect your business both now and in the future. Not only does it protect you against later applicants, but it also determines whether the trade mark registration can be potentially opposed or cancelled.
2. Alignment is essential
It is vital to trade mark and use your assets in accordance with the correct category or categories you need, to ensure protection. Often it is mistakenly assumed that registering a trade mark in one category covers any use of the trade mark, however this error can result in a trade mark dispute.
3. Name rights and reputation are limited
A personal name or reputation is not a free pass and can still be subject to a trade mark dispute, as it is the reputation of the trade mark and its associated goods or services, not that of the individual, which is taken into consideration during a trade mark dispute.
4. Good faith is not good enough
Whilst the court will take into consideration factors such as a party’s belief and awareness of another trade mark, it will also consider the commercial conduct of the parties, therefore it is imperative to keep all evidence of honest adoption and market use.
If you have any questions or would like some guidance with regards to your trade marks or other intellectual property, feel free to reach out to our team at Antcliffe:Scott. Our team is more than happy to help you.