Katy Perry was not present in the court for the latest hearing in the copy infringement case filed against her by her namesake Katie Perry.
Katy Perry, real name Katheryn Hudson, is being sued by an Australian fashion designer named Katie Perry for alleged trademark infringement for selling clothing in Australia bearing her stage name, which she shares with Katie. However, the musician isn't planning to make an appearance in court for cross-examination, reports the Sydney Morning Herald.
Katie Perry, legal name Katie Jane Taylor, uses her maiden surname for her brand. She launched Federal Court proceedings against the "Roar" hitmaker in October last year for infringement of the trademark she registered Down Under in 2008.
A hearing in the case was held in a Sydney court on Thursday. Katie's barrister Richard Cobden argued that the singer's merchandise covers "a broad range of goods" such as "coasters and Barbie dolls" which isn't their concern. However, some of the products including cat ears and a Katy Perry "Special Edition X-Large Pizza Box Kit" carrying pizza-themed pyjamas, pizza slice necklaces and a pencil case raise issues for their client.
"We allege infringement across a wide range of goods...We won't have a live witness to cross-examine," Cobden noted in the court. In place of Katy, Steven Jensen is appearing as the principal witness in the case. Jensen is a partner at Direct Management Group (DMG), which Katy's attorney called the "exclusive talent management agency" for the star.
In a judgement on preliminary issues in the case in April this year, Federal Court Justice Brigitte Markovic noted that the singer adopted the stage name Katy Perry in 2004 using "the short form of her own first name (Katheryn) and her mother's (Mary Perry) maiden name."
Katy's lawyers admitted in the court that her brand is "deceptively similar" to Katie's trademark, but insisted it isn't infringement since Katy used her name in good faith. The team has also filed a cross-claim with the argument that the 36-year-old already had a reputation in Australia before Katie registered her trademark. They also argued that it is Katie's trademark which is "contrary to law" and amounts to misleading or deceptive conduct because customers might associate her clothes with the pop-star.
Hearing in the case will resume in the court on a later date.