“Last Call” – High Court to decide the battle of the Katy(ie) Perrys
In our article in early April we looked at the Full Federal Court’s decision in the long running trademark battle between international pop singer Katy Perry (née Hudson) (Hudson) and Australian fashion designer Katie Taylor (née Perry) (Taylor). We also noted Taylor was seeking leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia with her application to be heard on April 11.
In a significant victory for Taylor, the High Court granted Taylor’s application and will hear her appeal.
The appeal will consider important questions of principle regarding the construction of three provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TM Act): section 60, section 88(2)(c), and section 89. These sections address issues of trademark reputation, rectification, and the discretion of the court in trademark disputes.
Taylor’s lawyers successfully argued that the Full Court made several errors in their application of various trademark law principles and that those errors could lead to a misapplication of the TM Act and potentially unjust outcomes for trademark owners.
Section 60 – Existing Reputation |
|
Issues being considered |
|
Significance |
The alleged errors related to section 60, which involve blurring the distinction between reputation generally and reputation in another trademark, could lead to an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of deception or confusion. This misinterpretation could result in unjust outcomes for trademark owners who have established a reputation in a specific trademark but not in other areas. |
Section 88(2)(c) – Cancellation because ongoing use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion |
|
Issues being considered |
|
Significance |
The alleged errors related to section 88(2)(c) could affect the evaluation of actual use versus potential use of a trademark. The Full Court's failure to address the submission that section 88(2)(c) requires consideration of the actual use made by the applicant of the registered owner of its trademark as at the date of the application for rectification could lead to an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of deception or confusion based on actual use. |
Section 89 – Courts discretion not to cancel |
|
|
|
Issues being considered |
|
Significance |
The alleged errors related to section 89, which involved treating the act of applying to register a trademark with knowledge of another's reputation as precluding the discretion under section 89, could result in an overly broad interpretation of what constitutes an "act" or "fault" of the registered owner. This could make it more difficult for trademark owners to defend their trademarks against rectification claims, even when their conduct was innocent and not blameworthy. |
The High Court’s decision will have significant implications in how key concepts in trademarks will be applied in the future.
The date of the appeal is yet to be set by the High Court but written submissions from the parties are due this month. We look forward to seeing the High Court decision, and when it brings this battle to its conclusion, one Katy(ie) will be ‘Walking on Air’ while the other will, no doubt, have ‘Teary Eyes’.
Author: Jason Sprague