Can Someone Famous Take Your Brand Name? Lessons from the Katy Perry Trademark Case

Many businesses assume that famous individuals or global brands will automatically win a trademark dispute.

[The Katy Perry vs Katie Perry trademark case] shows that this is not always true.

In Taylor v Killer Queen LLC, Australian fashion designer Katie Taylor, who trades as “Katie Perry”, was involved in a long-running trademark dispute with American singer Katy Perry, whose real name is Katheryn Hudson. The dispute went on for more than a decade and reached the High Court of Australia, which ultimately ruled in favour of the Australian designer in March 2026.

The case is a useful reminder for Malaysian business owners: fame alone does not automatically defeat earlier trademark rights. If a business has selected its brand properly, registered it early, and used it consistently, it may still have meaningful legal protection — even when facing a much larger and more famous party.

For Malaysian entrepreneurs, the case offers practical lessons on trademark registration, brand strategy, and business risk management.

What Happened in the Katy Perry Trademark Dispute?

Long story short, Australian fashion designer Katie Taylor launched her “Katie Perry” clothing business in 2007. “Katie Perry” was also derived from her own actual name. She subsequently filed a trademark application for “Katie Perry” in Australia in 2008, covering clothing products under Class 25. The trademark proceeded to registration in 2009.

Meanwhile, American singer Katy Perry, whose real name is Katheryn Hudson, began selling merchandise bearing the “Katy Perry” name online and during her tours. In 2009, she also filed trademark applications in Australia in conjunction with her world tour activities. The “Katy Perry” trademark eventually obtained registration in 2011. However, the singer had withdrawn the Class 25 clothing category from her application.

The dispute arose because both names were visually and phonetically very similar. Despite the slight spelling difference between “Katie” and “Katy”, the marks were considered sufficiently similar to potentially cause consumer confusion, particularly in relation to clothing and merchandise. Questions were also raised regarding the validity and enforceability of the respective trademark rights.

In 2023, the Federal Court of Australia found that merchandise sales associated with the singer infringed the designer’s earlier “Katie Perry” trademark rights.

The singer appealed the decision, and in 2024, the Full Federal Court reversed the earlier ruling and found no infringement.

However, in 2026, the High Court of Australia reinstated the designer’s trademark rights and ultimately confirmed that the singer’s merchandise sales in Australia amounted to trademark infringement.

The final outcome is significant because it reaffirmed that earlier registered trademark rights — even those owned by a relatively smaller business owner — can still prevail against globally recognised celebrities and brands.

Why the Case Matters to Business Owners

Some business owners may think:

“This is just a dispute between a celebrity and a fashion designer — what does it have to do with my business?”

Actually, it has everything to do with almost every business.

The Katy Perry case highlights a very important commercial reality — trademark disputes are not decided purely based on fame, popularity, or company size. Smaller businesses are not automatically without protection simply because the opposing party is bigger, richer, or more famous.

Many SMEs wrongly assume that large corporations or celebrities will always win trademark disputes. In reality, trademark rights are often heavily influenced by legal and commercial factors such as:

• Registration timing

• Whether the trademark is registered in the correct industry or class

• Actual commercial use of the trademark

• Market reputation and goodwill associated with the mark

• Likelihood of consumer confusion

This is precisely why businesses should not treat trademark registration as a mere administrative exercise. A trademark is a commercial asset and defensive business tool that may become extremely important when disputes arise years later.

The risks become even more significant when businesses begin expanding overseas, Appointing distributors or franchisees, launching new product lines or services and etc.

In many situations, businesses only discover trademark conflicts after they have already invested substantial time, money, branding, packaging, marketing, and customer goodwill into a particular name.

At that stage, rebranding can become extremely costly — both financially and commercially.

Does Fame Automatically Win Trademark Rights?

The short answer: fame helps, but it is not absolute.

A brand’s reputation and fame often depend on how widely the trademark is exposed to the public and recognised within the relevant market or industry, whether online or offline, locally or internationally.

However, the Katy Perry case demonstrates an important distinction: personal fame is not necessarily the same as trademark rights.

In this case, the court recognised that the singer was globally famous as an entertainer. However, her celebrity status alone did not automatically grant her unrestricted trademark rights against an earlier registered trademark owner in the clothing industry.

This reflects one of the core principles behind trademark law, balancing commercial fairness with consumer protection.

Generally, trademark law attempts to balance factors such as:

• Brand reputation and goodwill

• Earlier trademark rights

• Registered ownership

• Actual commercial use

• Likelihood of consumer confusion

For example, a brand that is famous internationally may still encounter legal obstacles if another party had already obtained valid trademark rights earlier in a particular country or industry category.

Therefore, reputation alone does not necessarily override all earlier trademark rights. While fame and market recognition may be persuasive considerations in certain cases, they are not always decisive. Much will still depend on the factual background, registration history, nature of use, and the likelihood of consumer confusion.

What Malaysian Businesses Can Learn From This

Register Early

One of the biggest lessons from the Katy Perry trademark dispute is simple: register your trademarks early.

Trademark rights are territorial in nature. This means that trademark protection obtained in one country does not automatically extend to another country. If your business plans to expand overseas, you should secure trademark protection in the relevant jurisdictions as early as possible.

This also explains why the singer registered her trademarks in Australia, despite being American, particularly in connection with her tours, merchandise, and commercial activities there.

Many trademark systems, including Malaysia, generally operate on a “first-to-file” basis. In practical terms, the party who files earlier will often have a stronger position in claiming prior trademark rights. However, sometimes, although “first-to-use” basis may be used to challenge an earlier registration.

In this case, the designer filed and secured rights to “Katie Perry” in Australia earlier than the singer.

Unnecessary delay in trademark registration creates significant commercial risks. If another party registers a similar or identical trademark before you, your business may eventually be forced into costly rebranding exercises or legal disputes.

The commercial impact can be substantial, including:

• Having to redesign and replace product packaging

• Applying for new signboard licences and approvals

• Reprinting signboards, brochures, labels, catalogues, and marketing materials

• Changing social media usernames and digital branding across multiple platforms

• Rebuilding SEO rankings, online visibility, and customer recognition

• Delays in franchising, licensing, or overseas expansion due to lack of trademark protection

• Risk of losing accumulated goodwill associated with the brand

In reality, many businesses only realise the importance of trademark protection after they encounter objections, infringement claims, distributor conflicts, or expansion problems.

By that stage, the costs involved are usually far higher than the original trademark registration costs.

If your business has not reviewed its trademark portfolio for some time, this may be a good opportunity to conduct a basic trademark audit, especially if your business has expanded into new products, services or countries.

Conduct Trademark Searches

Conducting trademark searches before adopting or filing a trademark is an important step in reducing legal and commercial risks.

Proper trademark searches help businesses identify potential conflicts early, avoid infringing third-party rights, and minimise unnecessary branding or rebranding costs later on.

Ideally, the scope of the trademark search should cover identical or similar trademarks, related trademark classes and relevant countries

Many entrepreneurs make the mistake of checking only whether a domain name or social media username is available. While digital availability is commercially important, it does not necessarily mean the trademark is legally available for use or registration.

A business may successfully secure a website domain or social media handle, yet still face trademark infringement claims if another party already owns earlier trademark rights.

Compared to the potential costs of rebranding or legal disputes, conducting preliminary trademark searches is usually a relatively small and commercially sensible investment.

Choose the Right Trademark Classes

Trademark protection is class-specific.

One common mistake made by businesses is filing trademark applications too narrowly. Many businesses only register their trademarks in their immediate core business classes at the beginning, but later forget to expand protection into related or secondary classes as the business grows.

Over time, this may create gaps in trademark protection, particularly when the business expands into new products, services, merchandise, licensing, franchising, or collaborations.

Failing to secure protection in highly relevant classes may expose businesses to unnecessary legal and branding risks later on.

For example:

• A café business may later expand into packaged coffee products, mugs, tumblers, tote bags, or coffee machine accessories

  
  

• A skincare brand may eventually venture into supplements, beauty devices, or wellness products

As businesses evolve, new product categories and services often require fresh trademark applications in the relevant trademark classes. There is no single trademark class that automatically protects every possible business activity.

For example, luxury fashion brand Coach expanded into the food and beverage sector through “The Coach Coffee Shop”, requiring trademark protection in additional food and beverage-related classes beyond fashion products alone.

Similarly, Chinese tea chain CHAGEE has reportedly obtained trademark protection across multiple classes beyond beverages, including merchandise-related categories such as clothing, toys, and sporting articles. This is commercially understandable given the increasing role of branded merchandise, collaborations, collectibles, and promotional campaigns in modern consumer branding.

Likewise, Katy Perry’s team also sought trademark protection not only for entertainment-related activities, but also for merchandise-related goods and services in multiple jurisdictions.

If your business plans to launch new products or expand into new market segments this year, it may be worthwhile reviewing whether your existing trademark portfolio sufficiently covers your future commercial activities.

You may also read our related article on: “How Trademark Classes Build a Competitive Moat for Your Business.”

Key Takeaways for Entrepreneurs

In conclusion, the Katy Perry trademark dispute serves as a strong reminder that strategic brand protection is not merely about who is bigger, richer, or more famous, it is often about who prepared earlier and protected their rights properly.

The case highlights several important lessons for entrepreneurs and growing businesses:

1. Register your trademarks early, preferably before launching or expanding.
   

2. Conduct proper trademark searches before investing heavily into branding and marketing.
   

3. Choose your trademark classes strategically, taking into account your current business activities and future expansion plans.
   

4. Prepare for overseas expansion early, even if international growth may still be years away, because trademark rights are territorial in nature.

If your business has not reviewed its trademark portfolio for some time, this may be a good opportunity to revisit it.

If you are unsure where to begin, feel free to contact us for a preliminary discussion. We would be happy to walk you through how trademark protection works and how businesses can develop practical trademark strategies aligned with their long-term commercial goals.

Written by,

Low Vee Vien

IP Associate

LL.B (HONS)

Lawrence Tan  

Registered Trademark, Patent and Design Agent

LL.B (HONS), CLP

Advocate & Solicitor

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to seek professional legal advice before acting on any information contained in this article.