Katy Perry is being sued by, umm… Katie Perry.
Based on Sydney Morning Herald, an Australian designer named Katie Jane Taylor, who sells attire beneath her maiden identify Katie Perry, is suing the “Smile” singer for alleged trademark infringement for promoting clothes bearing her stage identify.
Per the outlet, Taylor launched Federal Court docket proceedings towards the pop star in October 2019 for promoting “Katy Perry” merchandise in Australia starting from pajamas to (fake) kitten ears.
Within the go well with, Taylor claims the 36-year-old and the associated firm, Killer Queen LLC, infringed her trademark, Katie Perry (which she registered in Australia in 2008), by promoting objects with a reputation that’s “considerably equivalent with, or deceptively much like” her trademark.
In Thursday’s (November 12) pre-trial listening to, Taylor’s barrister, Richard Cobden, SC, acknowledged that whereas artists’ merch normally covers “a broad vary of products,” Cobden argued that Perry’s objects had been inside the scope of the infringement declare, together with a Katy Perry pizza-themed necklaces, pajamas, and a pencil case. “We allege infringement throughout a variety of products,” mentioned Cobden, noting that whereas Perry “is not going to be giving proof herself” and “we received’t have a stay witness to cross-examine,” it is not going to impede the case for his consumer.
Opposingly, legal professionals for the American musician—who took on the identify Katy Perry in 2004 utilizing “the quick type of her personal first identify and her mom’s maiden identify”—admitted the Katy Perry model is “deceptively comparable” to Taylor’s trademark, however denied allegations of infringement, arguing the performer used her identify in good religion.
Furthermore, Perry’s attorneys have filed a cross-claim that Taylor’s trademark is liable to be canceled as a result of the “Swish Swish” songbird had already been well-liked in Australia earlier than “Katie Perry” was registered. They declare that Taylor’s trademark is “opposite to regulation” and will quantity to deceptive or misleading conduct to shoppers who might imagine their manufacturers are related.
Picture: Getty Pictures