This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Artist News Business News Legal
Perry responds to Perry
By CMU Editorial | Published on Friday 19 June 2009
Well, we did say there might be a bit of confusion behind this story, and according to US popstress Katy Perry, that is the case.
She is denying reports that she is suing Australian clothing designer Katie Perry for having a similar name to her (well, for using her similar name on the clothes she designs), arguing that the legal letter her lawyers sent the fashion lady was a routine correspondence as part of her own trademark application.
The official statement from Katy Perry’s people does seem to make much of the fact Katie Perry often uses the name Katie Howell, however, as if to imply that her use of the Katie Perry name on her clothing range is in some way fraudulent.
Though, according to Reuters, while the fashion designer does sometimes use the Howell surname, her birth name is Perry. Whereas Katy Perry, of course, often uses the Perry surname, even though her birth name is Katy Hudson. In fact, back when she was being a good God-fearing Christian pop star (no kissing girls then, thank you very much) that was the name she performed under.
Anyway, here’s the official statement from sing-y Katy’s people: “In the course of securing trademark protection for Katy Perry in Australia, it came to the attention of her representatives that Katie Howell, a clothing designer in Australia, had filed an application for trademark protection under a similar name in connection with her own clothing design business. A routine notice letter was sent to Ms Howell, as is customary in trademark practice, alerting her of Ms Perry’s intended application”.
Via her blog, pop star Perry herself added: “This is a routine trademark application, and I certainly haven’t sued anyone. As usual, some of the press seems to have delighted in creating a story where there is none”.
In defence of the press, the story came very much from Perrie’s statement that the legal letter she’d received “asked me to give up the trademark, withdraw sale of my clothes, withdraw any advertising and any websites, and sign that I will not in the future use a similar trademark to Katy Perry”.
But, as I said, I am willing to except that there is some confusion going on here. It’s certainly true that most lawyers aren’t capable of writing a letter that doesn’t read like a death threat, and the problem here might just be an overly threatening tone used by one of Perry’s legal monkeys in what really is a routine trademark application correspondence.
