On 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia (High Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC [2026] HCA 5 (Taylor v Killer Queen), ending the seventeen (17) year trade mark dispute between pop star Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor.  In a 3:2 majority decision, the High Court held that the designer’s “Katie Perry” word mark could remain on the Trade Mark Register (Register), rejecting arguments that the singer’s reputation invalidated the mark.  The decision clarifies the interaction between personal names, reputation-based claims, and the validity of registered word marks under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TM Act).

Summary of the Taylor v Killer Queen case

On 24 October 2019, Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor (Designer) initiated proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against American singer Katheryn Hudson, known as Katy Perry (Singer), as well her associated companies; Killer Queen LLC and Kitty Purry Inc. (Companies). 

The dispute concerned whether the Designer could keep her registered trade mark “Katie Perry”, despite the global fame of the singer “Katy Perry”.  The Singer argued that her reputation meant the Designer’s trade mark should never have been granted and should now be removed because it could confuse consumers.

The High Court disagreed, holding that the Designer’s trade mark is valid and can remain on the register.  Importantly, the High Court found that a well-known reputation alone is not enough to lead to revocation of an existing registered trade mark.

The decision reinforces a key principle of Australian trade mark law: registration and priority matter. Even a globally famous name does not automatically override someone else’s registered rights.

While some issues have been referred to the Federal Court for further consideration, the decision is final and the Designer’s trademark has not been invalidated.

Context to the case of Taylor v Killer Queen

The dispute arose from the commercial use of the names “Katy Perry” and “Katie Perry” in connection with the sale of clothing and merchandise.

The Singer adopted the stage name “Katy Perry” in 2001 and subsequently achieved global fame.

The Designer registered the “Katie Perry” trade mark in Australia in 2008, which was later registered in 2009 for clothing under class 25.^[1]

The images above are logos featuring the registered word marks of the Singer and Designer.^[2]

The dispute arose during preparations for the Singer’s 2009 Australian tour, when her team reportedly proposed a “coexistence agreement” allowing both parties to use their names in commerce.  The proposal was declined by the Designer, and the Singer ultimately withdrew her opposition to the trade mark registration.

The Singer continued to sell branded merchandise, including clothing, in Australia during tours in 2009, 2011, 2014 and 2018 without formal objection from the Designer.

Federal Court: first instance judgement

At first instance in 2023, in the case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5) [2023] FCA 364, the Designer succeeded.  The Court found that the sale of clothing merchandise bearing the name “Katy Perry” infringed the registered mark “Katie Perry” pursuant to section 120 of the TM Act.

The Singer could personally rely on the defence under section 122(1)(a) of the TM Act, that states a TM is not infringed when a person’s name or name of business is used in good faith.  However, her companies could not rely on the same defence, entitling the Designer to an injunction that prohibited the respondents from selling “KATY PERRY” branded clothes in Australia.  Further, the conduct resulted in an award of additional damages pursuant to section 126(2) of the TM Act.

Basis for the first appeal to the Full Federal Court

The Singer appealed the judgement to the Full Federal Court on two (2) separate grounds.

Firstly, the Singer sought rectification of the Register under section 88(2)(a) of the TM Act, arguing that, because of the reputation of the Singer’s mark in Australia before the priority date, use of the Designer’s mark would have been likely to deceive or cause confusion.  This likelihood was to be assessed at the priority date, being the filing date of 29 September 2008.

Secondly, the Singer sought rectification under section 88(2)(c) of the TM Act, contending that, having regard to the circumstances existing when the rectification application was filed, use of the Designer’s mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion.  This likelihood was to be assessed at 20 December 2019, being more than ten (10) years after registration.

Thirdly, even if either ground for rectification were established, the appeal raised a further question: whether the Court should, in the exercise of its discretion, decline to cancel the registration.  This would depend on whether the Designer, as the registered owner, could demonstrate that the relevant ground for rectification arose without any act or fault on her part.  That discretion falls to be assessed by reference to the relevant dates; 29 September 2008 for the section 88(2)(a) ground, and 20 December 2019 for the section 88(2)(c) ground.

Outcome of the Full Federal Court appeal

The original decision was overturned on appeal by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia by Yates, Burley and Rofe JJ (Justices) in the case of Killer Queen, LLC v Taylor [2024] FCAFC 149. 

The appellate Justices reasoned that the Singer had established a substantial reputation in Australia prior to the priority date of 29 September 2008, thereby satisfying the grounds for cancelling the Designer’s trade mark under section 88(2)(a) of the TM Act.

The Designer appealed this judgement to the High Court of Australia.

High Court: final judgement

In the case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC [2026] HCA 5, the High Court considered the correct legal outcome of the construction of section 88(2)(a), finding by 3:2 majority that:

• the “Katie Perry” trade mark complied with Australian trade mark law;
• the mark was not liable to cancellation solely because the Singer had an established reputation in the similar name “Katy Perry”; and
• the likelihood of confusion or damage to reputation was insufficient to invalidate the registration.

The High Court stated that:

“Although we [the High Court] differ on the result, we agree with Jagot J [first instance appeal judge] on the questions of statutory construction about the provisions of the TM Act raised by this appeal.  The difference between us concerns the application of those provisions.”

[brackets are our addition]

As a result, the Designer’s trade mark remains on the Register.

The High Court also remitted aspects of the dispute back to the Full Federal Court to determine additional issues raised by the Singer’s legal team, including whether the Designer’s ten (10) year delay in bringing proceedings affects the outcome.

The Court further ordered that the Designer be awarded her costs of the proceedings in the High Court.

Key takeaways

The High Court decision clarifies important principles of trade mark law including:

• Registered rights prevail: The decision reinforces that a validly registered trade mark and priority of registration remain central in Australian trade mark law.  Reputation alone will rarely displace an existing registered mark.
• Personal names are not special: Personal or stage names used as brands receive no special protection.  Once registered as a trade mark they are treated like any other mark under the law.
• Delay may affect enforcement: The Designer’s delay in commencing proceedings may still influence aspects of the case when returned to the Federal Court, highlighting risks associated with late enforcement.

Links and further references

Legislation

Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)

Cases

Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5) [2023] FCA 364

Killer Queen, LLC v Taylor [2024] FCAFC 149

Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC [2026] HCA 5

Further information about trade mark litigation

If you need advice on initiating or defending trade mark proceedings to protect your business, contact us for a confidential and obligation‑free discussion.

Disclaimer

This article contains general commentary only.  You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances

[1] IP Australia, trade mark number 1264761.

[2] Images sourced from the Katie Perry clothing website (left) and the Katy Perry merchandise website (right), which is now inaccessible to customers in Australia.

Related insights about trade mark law