Australian Designer Who Sued Katy Perry Feels ‘Personally Attacked’ Over Appeal Of Trademark Ruling
from the how-dare-she dept
Our posts on Katy Perry in the past have been all over the place. Sometimes Perry is an intellectual property bully. Sometimes she’s more the victim of intellectual property bullying. But what is not in dispute is the Katy Perry is a cultural icon worldwide with an extremely famous, albeit misspelled, name.
In Australia, Katie Taylor is a clothing designer that sells her goods under the label “Katie Perry.” Earlier this year, Katie sued Katy over clothing sold by the singer during a tour in 2014. The courts somehow found for Taylor in that case, but limited any damages very specifically to uses by Perry’s company, Kitty Purry, for selling clothing at pop up stores and online. In the midst of that, Perry’s petition to cancel Taylor’s mark entirely was also refuted.
So why are we still talking about this? Well, Katy Perry has appealed that ruling, and this normal part of the legal process has apparently caused Katie Taylor to have a meltdown.
Ms Taylor thought the case was settled. However, on Wednesday she revealed the singer had appealed the Judgement sending the case back to court. In a social media post, Ms Taylor said she was left in tears at the prospect of the “David vs Goliath” battle.
Ms Taylor said she didn’t want her children to see her upset so went outside and “burst into tears on the street as strangers walked by”.
She said Perry had “chosen to continue to drag the case out”.
That’s quite a take. Katy Perry did not personally attack you for appealing the court decision resulting from your lawsuit against her. Taylor started this legal process and Perry is availing herself of the rights afforded to her under the law. Pretending this is somehow a personal attack is absolutely silly.
As is, frankly, the original court decision. Perry is selling merchandise for her tour, under her nom de plume, and the idea that even in Australia her fans are somehow going to be in any way confused as to what they are buying is absurd. Or, if not absurd, at least in question enough to make an appeal of this decision rational.
So enough melodrama over having to fight an appeal of your own lawsuit.
Filed Under: australia, katie perry, katie taylor, katy perry, trademark
Comments on “Australian Designer Who Sued Katy Perry Feels ‘Personally Attacked’ Over Appeal Of Trademark Ruling”
'They defended themselves, it's not fair!'
Gotta say, it takes some real chutzpah to throw a fit and claim to be personally attacked when you file legal action against someone and they defend themselves rather than fold and let you get your way.
Now, she can rename her brand “Taylor Swift”… the list of pop singer to sue goes on indefinitely.
You…do realize that you didn’t quote the part of the article that includes the quote you used in the headline, right?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Blah
Interestingly, “Katy Perry” is not her real name either; it’s “Katy Hudson”.
But I think Katy Perry (or Hudson) obtained the trademark first, so she has more of the right to claim ownership over this.
Re:
Probably not or she would have won.
BBC> The designer started selling clothes using the brand name Katie Perry in 2007, and registered it as a trademark in Australia the following year. The singer, who scored her first hits in 2008, was ruled to have infringed the trademark by promoting a jacket advertising her album Roar, “Cozy Little Christmas” hoodies, T-shirts, sweatpants and scarves, on social media.
Ah, yes, because having them find out that their mother had a meltdown on what’s likely to be national media would be the preferred method of ensuring this affair is handled rationally, reasonably and with minimal fuss.
It’s like every single “champion” of intellectual property goes out of their way to be the most attention-seeking drama queens.
Re:
“It’s like every single “champion” of intellectual property goes out of their way to be the most attention-seeking drama queens,”
Which would explain John Smith a lot…
Katy Perry’s next tour should be the “Katie Taylor Sucks and Her Clothes are Ugly” tour.
Why?
Im honestly not understanding why she sued Katy Perry in the first place. Its not hurting her. Its not close enough to weaken her trademark. So whats the point?
Re:
Free publicity and notoriety, and being able to leverage the whole “David versus Goliath” thing.
The downside is that sometimes things don’t quite pan out the way it did in the Bible. Turns out that Goliath is still pretty fucking big even though in some cases, you do have a lot “fuck Google” energy backing you up in cases like news sites and Milorad Truklja. Of course, the fact that this risk exists doesn’t stop people from trying, because that moral superiority gamble is exactly what they’re banking on.
Which is also why they end up so stunned and hurt that they didn’t manage to beat the odds, where everyone else just sees a “no shit Sherlock” scenario.
So...
If I call my new drink Koka Cola then I’m not infringing a trademark, right?
Slight spelling change does not escape trademark law – this is the whole point, avoiding confusion. For once, Katy (not Katie) has a point about her trademark. Taylor is just piggybacking on the implied connection.
That said though, Katy Perry seems to have been more the victim in recent years and not so much the aggressor. The articles where she was absolutely the villain of the story seem to be mostly in the early 2010s, while recent years seem to have shown her come under attack instead.
Of course, this isn’t to necessarily say that she’s learned anything. Far likelier that other IP maximalists, emboldened by a few chance victories, are now trying to cash in on the whole David v. Goliath gambit like it’s going out of style.