It is important to protect the brands associated with your business because it is these that the buying public comes to know you by. Whether it is a recognisable company name, logo, visual identity, or product/service name – it is used by others and can divert business and profits away from your business.
This not only results in a financial loss for your business – but also reputational loss as “copycats” often produce lower quality goods and services, which the public may assume come from you.
As a business grows, it becomes more well known as do the products and services it provides. Signs that businesses use to identify these products become very valuable because:
- They are how the public recognises products/services you create.
- Products and services marked with the signs have more “brand value” and may often be sold at a premium compared to unmarked goods.
- You can license or franchise brands to other people, allowing them to use them within certain rules, growing your business and profits.
A recent much publicised case has been one in Australis concerning the singer Katy Perry who recently lost a trademark battle with an Australian fashion designer called Katie Perry.
Katie Taylor, who sells clothes under her birth name Katie Perry, sued the pop star, saying her merchandise infringed a trademark she had owned since 2008. The designer started selling clothes using the brand name Katie Perry in 2007 and registered it as a trademark in Australia the following year.
Pop Star Katy Perry’s (whose birthname is Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson and who rose to global fame as a singer around the same time) merchandising business, Kitty Purry, sells her branded merchandise using her renowned stage name, “KATY PERRY” (please note the different spellings for Katie and Katy)
Last week, a judge agreed that clothing sold for Katy’s 2014 Australian tour did breach Katie’s trademark.
“This is a tale of two women, two teenage dreams and one name,” Justice Brigitte Markovic wrote in her ruling.
The judge said the Teenage Dream singer, born Katheryn Hudson, used the Katy Perry name in “good faith” and does not owe any personal compensation to the designer.
However, the star’s company Kitty Purry must pay damages, which will be decided next month.
The singer 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.
However, the judge rejected further claims relating to sales in certain stores and websites, and merchandise for a 2018 tour.
Justice Markovic dismissed a bid by the pop star to cancel the Katie Perry trademark.
The designer described the outcome as a victory in a “David and Goliath” case.
“Not only have I fought for 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.”
In the UK, the outcome would very likely have been the same. This case is a strong reminder that the timing of which party owned what and when is vital to trademark disputes. It is also refreshing to see that the unequal financial resources of the parties did not result in this instance in Ms Taylor being coerced by a famous opponent.