Remember almost five years ago when the royalists in England lost their ever-loving minds over a newborn baby in California being named for her great-grandmother? Of course you do. Well, the outburst that finally made me fall out of my chair was when the Daily Mail’s Jan Moir said, with the sober intensity of a Shakespearean tragedy, that the name Lilibet “was the ONE thing the Queen had that was entirely her own!” (Emphasis mine, but still.) The thing is, for most of us it is true in some philosophical sense that all we have is our own name. It’s just that most of us don’t have palaces, castles, stolen land, stolen jewelry, armed forces, and a whole flippin’ Commonwealth.

Which brings us to this news out of Commonwealth member Australia: in 2009, a Sydney-based fashion designer was enjoying early success with the clothing line she’d created in her name, Katie Perry, when a cease-and-desist letter from American pop star Katy Perry took a shearing scissors to Katie’s dreams. What followed in the intervening years was a relentless trademark battle of Perry vs. Perry, which the Australian High Court finally ended on Wednesday, officially siding with designer Katie. CNN got the scoop from victor Katie, who for clarity’s sake used her married surname, Taylor:

First Katy Perry sent the c&d: “I arrived back in the showroom, there were empty champagne glasses everywhere, and opened my post, and all I remember is looking at this paper that said, cease and desist. Stop sale of your clothes, stop any website, and stop any advertising material.” … Ahead of Perry’s first Australian tour in 2009, her lawyers sent Taylor a letter demanding she withdraw her trademark application, which she had registered months prior. “I remember, bursting into tears and thinking, what is this all about? I haven’t done anything wrong,” Taylor said.

Then the two Perrys split trademark rights: Taylor was granted the trademark for clothing and Perry amended her application to include just music and entertainment, according to the court ruling. The legal battle faded to the background. But as Perry’s star grew and she continued to tour the world, including Australia, she began to offer branded tour merchandise, including clothing, to fans. In 2019, Taylor sued the singer, arguing Perry had infringed on her trademark.

And then the courts got involved: Taylor won her case in Federal Court but lost on appeal, with the judges finding that Perry’s reputation in Australia was stronger than Taylor’s at the time Taylor had registered her trademark application, and that it is common practice for pop stars to sell merchandise. In a strong rebuke against Taylor’s case, they argued that her “Katie Perry” trademark should be canceled. But on Wednesday, Australia’s High Court overturned the ruling, arguing the cancellation of the trademark was not warranted, and the use of the “Katie Perry” trademark was not likely to deceive or cause confusion.

Katie, on why she never gave up the fight: Taylor said the court battle was a long and difficult process, but she did it to show that trademarks are there to protect small businesses, not just large brands. “So many people said to me, like, why don’t you just give up? It’s not worth it. I really believe in standing up for your values. Truth and justice are part of my core and my values.” Now it’s “back to business” and selling her garments at markets in Sydney, Taylor said. “But without this hanging over my head, which is how it’s been really since 2009. Just a heaviness, and lots of fear, and limbo,” she said. “Now I can start really looking forward and focusing on the future. I’m really excited.”

[From CNN]

Yay for the underdog! Katie-the-designer outlines the whole ordeal on her website, again highlighting the fact that she stuck through it all in the name of small business rights. She really did take all the right, legal steps when she launched her line in 2007 to run her business in the name she was born with. Why? ‘Cause baby she was born this wa— Oh, sorry, wrong pop star. Meanwhile, Katy-the-singer issued a lame response through a rep: “Katy Perry has never sought to close down Ms. Taylor’s business or stop her selling clothes under the KATIE PERRY label.” Sure, bish. Celebs can be aggressive with trademarking, and for good reason — to protect from the sale of merch pretending to be from the celebrity. But that was not this case! Katie’s clothing line was established before Katy became a huge global star, and, like the High Court pointed out, the clothing is obviously not out to deceive the public. Nor do I think you could reasonably confuse Katie’s clothing as connected to Katy, mainly because the Aussie clothing is actually tasteful. (And 100% made in Oz from sustainable fabrics in small-batch production, huzzah!)

So yeah, I think the law was clearly on Katie’s side. Still, I’ll privately chuckle to myself imagining that Katy’s 2025 space flight fiasco had a hand in tipping the scales of justice. Oh, and let’s not forget the ultimate kicker — that Katy’s real last name is Hudson, which she changed to avoid confusion with Kate Hudson.

photos via Katie Perry’s website and via Youtube. Also credit: Mike Gray/Avalon