When an Australian designer started a fashion label a decade ago, she had no idea it would spark a near seven-year legal battle with international pop star Katy Perry.
Fashion designer Katie Taylor, born Katie Perry, sued the Firework singer in 2019 for trademark infringement over the sale of the popstar’s branded clothing, shoes, and headwear.
The Roar performer, whose real name is Katheryn Hudson, responded with a bid to cancel the designer’s mark on the basis that it was likely to harm the singer’s reputation or deceive shoppers.
The designer emerged as the Dark Horse victor in March when the High Court ruled Perry and her companies had infringed on the Australian's trademark and allowed her to keep it.
But, as one of the singer’s hit songs states, it’s Never Really Over.
The legal battle returned to the Federal Court on Tuesday to determine what relief, damages, and costs the designer would receive.
Those issues weren't resolved by the Full Court of the Federal Court because of its now-quashed decision to cancel Ms Taylor's trademark registration.
Perry's lawyers told the Full Court that the primary judge was wrong to award the designer additional damages for the infringement of her trademark.
She also challenged an injunction the judge made against her company Kitty Purry to prevent continuing infringement.
On Tuesday, Ms Taylor’s lawyer advocated for a half-day hearing so oral arguments could be put to the Full Court and tested, noting the time that has lapsed since the appeal.
But Perry's lawyer suggested written submissions was a better course.
Justice Jonathan Beach left the decision in the hands of the appeal court, ordering written submissions be delivered for review before the judges rule on whether a hearing is necessary.
The matter has been set down for a hearing date on November 26, which may be vacated.
It marks the dying days of a lengthy spat that dates back to 2009, when the pop star first became aware the designer held the Katie Perry trademark.
In anticipation of a tour to Australia, Perry sent Ms Taylor a cease-and-desist letter.
She sought to either stop the designer using the trademark or come to an agreement where they could both use their respective marks, but no agreement was reached.
The singer ultimately withdrew her opposition to Ms Taylor's trademark but continued to sell her own branded clothing in Australia.
Around a decade later, after learning about litigation funding, the small-time designer sued Ms Hudson for trademark infringement and the David-and-Goliath battle began.
