Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Katy Perry sues similarly named fashion designer

A story has been making the rounds that Australian clothing designer Katie Perry, who just opened up her first brick and mortar shop in Sydney, applied for trademark protection of her name and received a letter from singer Katy Perry's lawyers, telling her not only to give up her claim to the trademark, but that the designer should cease all advertising, sites and such using her own name.

Look, I know that at times, lawyers are just dicks and they do things without the full knowledge of their clients... I get that, so Katy Perry may not be a monster in all this, but then again, she may indeed be a party to all this, and if she is, well, she's not being very Christian in all this.

And this would be especially true since Katy Perry isn't even her real name (as we all likely know). She was born Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson, and Katy Perry is her stage name so no one confuses her with Kate Hudson.

Meanwhile, the designer in question was born Katie Perry... not Katherine or any other name... her birth name is Katie.

I don't know... I think if someone should be able to trademark their name in this instance, it should be the person who was actually born with it. But that may just be me.

Here's how I would love this court case to go down:

Judge: So your client isn't in fact named Katy Perry.
Katy's Lawyer: Well, your honour... no.
Judge: And if I understand correctly, your client is indeed Katie Perry.
Katie's Lawyer: Yes your honor.
Judge: Case Dismissed.

If anything, I would love to see Katy Perry then have to pay the legal costs after all this is over. I don't know if the Australian legal system works that way, but if it does, then this frivolous bit of legal wrangling should indeed be punished.

I honestly don't see how anyone involved from the singer's side of this thought that public support would somehow be with her (and seeing as she is touring Australia in a couple of months, I don't think this is good publicity for her at all).


Lee said...

The system most certainly does work that way here in Australia, so I hope that she does beat this stupid claim.

It's happened here before actually with a couple of foreign properties (McDonald's for instance) and the problem often comes when the defendant can't afford the up front legal fees and has to roll over :(

Oh and get on to that last Robocop bit, I want to release it early this week!

Arjan said...

fortunately I was able to avoid Katy Perry's music 2 weeks ago (she sang at a festival I attended).

These kind of claims are just silly.

Tracey said...

That's crazy!!

I hadn't heard about this case until now. I certainly hope this issue is laughed out of the courtroom...what a waste of time and money.

MC said...

Lee: Well, that's generally what these companies want... they want to intimidate people into just giving up without a fight.

Arjan: Ack... I would have been traumatized (well, if I didn't have ear plugs).

Tracey: For both parties... for both parties.