Back in 2012, Katy Perry stood her ground on “Part of Me,” singing all about her newfound invincibility. “This is the part of me that you’re never gonna ever take away from me,” she declared. Unfortunately, thanks to a verdict from the judge ruling over her longtime trademark battle with Australian fashion designer Katie Perry, her own stage name isn’t one of the things that can’t be taken away from her.
“This is a tale of two women, two teenage dreams and one name,” Justice Brigitte Markovic wrote in her ruling, per BBC, declaring that the singer did, in fact, breach the designer’s long-standing trademark when she sold merchandise on the Australian leg of her 2014 tour. Katie Perry, who does business under her given name but goes by her married name Katie Taylor, filed the trademark in 2008 before the pop star — born Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson — had made waves in America, let alone all the way in Australia.
EMI, the record label Perry was signed to at the time, issued a cease-and-desist in 2009 calling for Taylor to discontinue use of the “similar name” in connection to her clothing label. “Imagine my surprise when one of the reactions I received was a letter from lawyers representing the US singer, Katy Perry,” the designer wrote in a statement shared on her official brand website after the ruling. “They stated that I should immediately stop trading under this name, withdraw all my clothes and sign a document drafted by them to say that from then on I will never trade under this name ever again.”
Needless to say, it didn’t work. “While the singer eventually gave up trying to prevent my Australian trade mark from being registered, once registered, she chose to simply disregard it,” Taylor continued. “Singer Katy Perry clothing was sold to Australian customers during Katy Perry performance tours over here, and through retail channels, including via websites. The singer has continued to ignore my trade mark and one of her companies continues to sell infringing goods unlawfully in Australia.”
The judge recognized Perry’s use of the name as having been in “good faith,” therefore she won’t be required to personally compensate the designer. However, her company, Kitty Purry, will be required to pay financial damages in an amount that will be determined sometime next month. For Taylor, the win is more than a financial one.
“Over the past few years, including whilst battling it out in court, I have been bullied and trolled. My friends and family have been trolled,” she wrote. “Not only have I fought myself, but I fought for small businesses in this country, many of them started by women, who can find themselves up against overseas entities who have much more financial power than we do.”
A rep for Perry did not immediately respond to Rolling Stone‘s request for comment.