from the full-circle dept
It’s been a long and winding road to mostly get us right back to where we started in the battle between pop star Katy Perry and Aussie clothing designer Katie Perry. If you’re not familiar with this saga, here is a brief summary. Note that I will be mostly using only Katy and Katie when naming the players here to avoid confusion.
Katie Taylor is the real name of the Aussie designer, but she began selling clothing under the name “Katie Perry” in 2008 and secured a trademark for the name in Australia for clothing. While Katy’s team initially sent a C&D to Katie’s business around that same time, it appears nothing came of that C&D, even as the singer went on a worldwide tour that included Australia in 2014. That’s when Katie sued Katy, arguing that clothing merch sold on her local tour constituted trademark infringement, as the public might be confused between the two entities and who was producing what and for whom. She won her initial lawsuit, but Katy appealed and won, with the court not only clearing her of trademark infringement but also canceling Katie’s trademark entirely. Rather than leaving well enough alone, Katie appealed that ruling to Australia’s High Court.
And that brings us to an unlikely present, in which the High Court partially agreed with Katie’s appeal, reinstating her trademark, but not ruling that Katy Perry infringed upon it. I’m going to stay away from the first part of CNN’s post on the matter, because it does a horrible job of framing all of this, mostly in that in paints Katie Perry as some kind of underdog victim in all of this when she very much is not. But as for the ruling itself:
But on Wednesday, Australia’s High Court overturned the ruling, arguing the cancellation of the trademark was not warranted, and the use of the “Katie Perry” trademark was not likely to deceive or cause confusion.
Taylor said the court battle was a long and difficult process, but she did it to show that trademarks are there to protect small businesses, not just large brands.
“So many people said to me, like, why don’t you just give up? It’s not worth it. I really believe in standing up for your values. Truth and justice are part of my core and my values.”
And this is where I’m once again frustrated with CNN’s posture in its reporting. Katie sued Katy. That’s how this whole episode really started. Katie talking about how she is glad this all isn’t hanging over her head when she started the lawsuit that led to all of this is insane. This was a self-inflicted wound of epic proportions on a timeline equally crazy.
But the key part to me is that the logic behind ruling that Katie can have her trademark back is that Katie’s and Katy’s trademarks can coexist without any real concern for deception or confusion. That same logic is what I stated at the start of this whole ordeal as the reason this trademark lawsuit battle never should have been started in the first place.
Started by Katie Perry, I’ll remind you. And so we’ve come full circle, with both groups having their trademarks but without any actual infringement having occurred. It’s been a wild, stupid trip, but I guess we got where we were going: right back to where we started.
Filed Under: australia, katie perry, katy perry, trademark
