Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement.

1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused

Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album.

When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source.

Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration.

2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry

In 2008, Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor (maiden name Perry) registered the trademark “KATIE PERRY” for her clothing brand. This registration was valid, and so when the singer Katy Perry began to sell merchandise under “KATY PERRY,” the designer sued her for infringement. Katy Perry claimed that she had an established reputation in “KATY PERRY” and that consumers would likely be confused. As such, she sought to cancel the designer’s registration. Although there were conflicting lower court decisions, in March 2026 the Australian High Court found in favor of the designer and allowed her trademark registration for “KATIE PERRY” to remain.

The High Court emphasized that trademark reputation must be tied to specific goods or services, and an individual’s fame alone is not enough to prevent a party enforcing their existing IP rights. Additionally, it was found that the global fame of Katy Perry reduced the risk of confusion as it was less likely that an ordinary consumer would confuse Katy Perry, the global celebrity, with Katie Perry, an Australian clothing business.

3. UK: Jo Malone Sued by Estée Lauder for Use of Her Name

Jo Malone’s brand “Jo Loves” recently collaborated with Zara to create a new line of fragrances. The product packaging had the wording “Created by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves.” In March 2026, a High Court case was brought against Jo Malone by Estée Lauder for breach of the 1999 agreement governing the sale of Jo Malone’s business to Estée Lauder. This agreement granted Estée Lauder the rights to the Jo Malone brand and the associated rights to use her name commercially. Their claim alleges breach of contract, trademark infringement, and passing off. Estée Lauder also argued that the Zara collaboration risks diluting the luxury positioning of the Jo Malone London brand. They are reportedly seeking GBP 200,000 in damages.

The 1999 sale of Jo Malone included clear and ongoing restrictions on Jo Malone’s use of her name in fragrance-related commercial contexts. However, Jo Malone is using her own personal name, which is a statutory defense under UK trademark law, although this defense is limited to use by individuals only. This is an ongoing case, and the High Court has yet to issue its judgment. The court will need to strike a balance between the “own name defense” and honoring a contract freely entered into. It is likely that the final outcome will hinge on the precise wording of the 1999 agreement between the parties.

4. UK: Victoria Beckham Autograph Dispute

Victoria Beckham was the defendant in a High Court slander case after alleging that a memorabilia store was selling fake autographs of her husband, David Beckham. Her initial allegations of forged signatures were reported in the press, which caused reputation and commercial harm to the store in question. In response, the store owners brought proceedings for slander to protect their reputation. Following further investigation, Victoria Beckham found that the autographs were in fact genuine and accepted that the claimants were honest and reputable traders. The matter was then settled out of court and involved a payment of £55,000 in damages, payment of legal fees, and a formal apology, as well as an agreement to provide signed official merchandise signed by David Beckham to the store.

5. Thailand: Authorship Credit Dispute

There is an ongoing dispute between the Korean hip-hop artist Moon and the Thai director Napussorn Somlit that centers on authorship credit for the music video “Fresh Girls Stand Up” released in March 2026. After the release of the video, Moon was listed as the director, something that Napussorn Somlit publicly challenged, stating she had been engaged as the director and had taken on key production responsibilities. The credits were then updated to list Napussorn Somlit as codirector, but she felt this still did not reflect the true nature of her role. The matter became more interesting as Moon then defended her position by sharing ChatGPT conversations as evidence of her creative involvement and contribution.

This is an ongoing dispute that raises the question of authorship and the creation of IP. It is unknown what was agreed in writing between the parties. Additionally, the use of ChatGPT raises another interesting point that many jurisdictions have yet to decide: how does the involvement of AI in the creative process affect ownership rights over artistic works?

The five cases can be reduced to five simple lessons:

1. Likelihood of confusion can be a barrier to any application, regardless of the prior fame of the applicant.
2. Global fame alone is not enough to overcome an opposition where there is a prior registered right.
3. Be clear on what rights you are selling and consider the future consequences of the sale—especially future usage rights. Not all jurisdictions will allow you to use your name for commercial gain if you have willingly contracted away the usage rights.
4. Be sure that your rights are being infringed before engaging in any enforcement action.
5. Be clear on responsibilities and associated rights before production and be mindful of authorship rights in the age of AI.

The cases discussed above show how not performing adequate checks prior to commencing an application or production can result in costly disputes. This is why it is always recommended to consult with an IP lawyer to ensure that your rights are being fully protected and to enable you to maximize your future commercialization opportunities.