A Win for Small Businesses: How Katy Perry Lost Against Katie Perry

Cosmopolitan UK, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

A BIG WIN: Katy Perry loses a trademark battle with a fashion designer called Katie Perry.

The case of Katie Perry, married name Katie Taylor, represents a win for small business owners. This is primarily because it’s not uncommon for small businesses to lack the financial power to support such challenging cases.

Katie had this to say:

"Over the past few years, including whilst battling it out in court, I have been bullied and trolled. My friends and family have been trolled," she stated.

"Not only have I fought myself, but I fought for small businesses in this country, many of them started by women, who can find themselves up against overseas entities who have much more financial power than we do."

But where did this all begin? Let's explore the case of the Katie Perry trademark in more detail:

A brief history: Katie Perry vs. Katy Perry

The year is 2008, and a young Australian fashion designer is trying to register her fashion brand trademark. To her surprise, USA artist Katy Perry has attempted to block the trademark registration.

But it fails.

So, fast forward to 2009, and designer Katie Perry receives a cease and desist order. The letter stated that she must withdraw all of her clothing and sign a document saying she'll never work under the name again.

She had this to say:

"A true case of David vs. Goliath. I felt bullied, insulted, and surprised."

However, that wouldn't stop her, and she vowed to "fight against this injustice."

Singer Katy Perry eventually abandoned this bid for control. However, this wasn't going to be it for the long-standing battle.

Where we are today: US singer loses trademark battle

Katie decided to take the fight back to her when she made the argument that clothing sold during Katy Perry's 2014 Australian tour breached her trademark.

After lengthy litigation, a judge agreed that this was a breach of her trademark. Although, the pop star, born Katheryn Hudson, used the name in good faith. Therefore she doesn’t owe any compensation.

However:

Her company, Kitty Purry, is liable to pay damages to the Australian fashion designer. This is a win for the Katie Perry brand and a massive loss for the Teenage Dream singer.

A tale of two women

Justice Brigitte Markovic wrote, playing on the top hit by Katy Perry, "Teenage Dream:

"This is a tale of two women, two teenage dreams, and one name."

It likely won’t be the end of "David vs. Goliath" stories regarding intellectual property. But it's certainly a great win and a massive step in the right direction.