Katie Perry accused of lying amid legal dispute with Katy Perry

[Teletubby 116,862]

Katie Perry accused of lying amid legal dispute with Katy Perry 

Matthew Darke SC, representing Katy Perry, pointed to a number of media interviews Ms Taylor (Katie Perry ) had with A Current Affair, The Australian, and Who Magazine, among others.

Mr Darke said she had carefully crafted a media strategy with a PR firm to garner publicity in association with the musician.

He pointed to one such email in which she wrote: 'Thought you might be interested to see your star client is in the press again !!!'

She then told a journalist she had wanted to meet Perry “to wish her every success and here are my clothes,” despite writing in court documents she would never give away her clothes for free. 

“You lied throughout that affidavit where it serves your interest to do so,” Mr Darke said. 

Ms Taylor denied this and maintained she was unaware the singer was selling clothing merchandise in Australia in 2009, thinking she was only out for her trademark to strengthen her brand for the future. 

Mr Darke accused her of being “absolutely and utterly dishonest … to explain the inordinate delay in commencing these proceedings” over a decade later.

https://www.aap.com.au/news/designer-katie-perry-lied-over-pop-star/


American singer Katy Perry attempted to "snuff out" the budding business of an Australian fashion designer using her "financial might" during a brewing trademark battle, a Sydney court has heard. 

Katie Jane Taylor has sold clothes under her maiden name, Katie Perry, since November 2006 and had a trademark registered in September 2008.

In a case being heard before the Federal Court, she alleges the singer infringed her trademark from at least 2013 by selling products with a mark "substantially identical to, or deceptively similar to" her own.

The singer, whose real name is Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson, subsequently launched a cross claim to have Ms Taylor's trademark cancelled.

Barrister Christian Dimitriadis SC, for Ms Taylor, told the court the designer began her business "well before" she was aware of the singer, which meant she was the rightful owner of the trademark. He described Katy's "flagrant" infringement of Ms Taylor's rights and outlined how she had resisted "heavy-handed threats" back in 2009.
"Ms Hudson and her advisors attempted to use their greater sophistication and financial might to snuff out Ms Taylor's nascent business," he told the court.

In defence documents, Perry's legal team denies infringing the designer's trademark because she used her own name in good faith. He also rejected the assertions of "heavy handedness.

Ms Taylor, whose case is funded by litigation funder LCM, is expected to give evidence tomorrow.

While Perry is not expected to make an appearance, her manager Steven Jensen will be a witness.

source

[berlinforme 4,984]

I see what you did with that title. 
 

[RudraCNG 13,370]

12 minutes ago, berlinforme said:

I see what you did with that title. 
 

I got my hopes up for Reputation 2 

[RAMROD 96,170]

Why is she so petty? Does the bad karma she got after putting those nuns in emotional hardships cos she wanted to purchase the monastery they lived in or whatever until one of them died not enough for a lesson??

[Versace 7,375]

9 minutes ago, RudraCNG said:

I got my hopes up for Reputation 2 

 

Wait for reputation Taylor’s Version 

Anyways in response to the OP, I think both sides  have their merit. 

If this Taylor gurl launched her Katie Perry fashion brand in 2006, that was well before Katy’s debut or at least breakthrough in 2008. However you can’t not expect Katy to use her damn name in her own merch/clothing line or wtv it be. Especially at this stage when she’s so established and known for that name. Kinda makes sense to terminate the irrelevant one’s trademark and compensate her in some way (gurl needs to change it if she’s smart as the name is almost globally associated with Katy the artist by now). Many businesses do rebranding once these issues arise to an extreme. 

[monstertoronto 7,547]

Honestly this summary is missing an important detail…. Katy Perry’s lawyers tried to do a “co-existence” agreement which the Katie designer crazily rejected. A co-existence agreement allows both sides to continue to use the same name, and it’s the only fair solution.  The designer is being delusional as she’s arguing that Katy Perry the singer is “infringing” the designer’s trademark by selling Katy Perry merchandise at Katy Perry concerts.  Absolutely zero people buying a Katy Perry concert T at a Katy Perry concert are doing so because they were tricked into believing they were buying a Katie Taylor designer original. Katy Perry is massively famous and obviously they are buying shirts and products with her her name on it because they want to buy from the pop star at her concert.  Katie Taylor designer would have to make the argument that Katy Perry singer is causing “confusion in the marketplace” or “trading off the goodwill” of Katie Taylor’s name and reputation by selling Katy Perry merch at a Katy Perry concert. Obviously both of those arguments would be insane and impossible to argue. Again, nobody at a Katy Perry concert is buying merch hoping that that they’re buying merch from Katie Taylor designer instead. However, Katy Perry could definitely make those arguments in reverse…. If someone sees a shirt or something with “Katie Perry” on the label, they might buy it thinking it’s related to the singer and if it’s crap they might mistakenly think Katy Perry designed something they didn’t like. Katy Perry was being generous to try a “co-existence” agreement.  Katie Taylor designer is literally trying to prevent Katy Perry singer from selling merch with her own name at her own concerts and that’s lunacy. 

[monstertoronto 7,547]

1 hour ago, RAMROD said:

Why is she so petty? Does the bad karma she got after putting those nuns in emotional hardships cos she wanted to purchase the monastery they lived in or whatever until one of them died not enough for a lesson??

It’s hardly being “petty” to want to sell merchandise with your own name on it at your own concerts. Be realistic. 

[Dojo 19,365]

As sis @Anveeroy would say, reported for flamebait

[Teletubby 116,862]

 

[flyaway 15,350]