Katy Perry has denied threatening her Australian namesake with legal action over a clothing range – after the fashion designer accused the star’s management of bullying her into giving up her trademark.

Perry’s attorneys targeted Katie Perry, also known as Katie Howell, who runs a self-titled loungewear company in her native Australia after the singer’s team attempted to file a trademark protection order in the country.

The clothing-maker claimed she had received a letter form Perry’s lawyers ordering her to cease trading and withdraw her right to use the name Katie Perry on all her goods – and she vowed to contest the demands in court.

She said, “It really felt like I was being intimidated and bullied into signing everything away. (The letter) 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. I pretty much burst into tears. love my business. I’m not going to give it away without a fight either.”

She also issued an emotional plea to Perry in an Internet video – urging the star not to destroy her company.

The I Kissed A Girl hitmaker has now acknowledged the row in a post on her website – but insists she never planned to take legal action over the issue and accuses the press of blowing the issue out of proportion.

A statement on the star’s official website reads, “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.”

Perry herself adds, “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.”

Source, Bauer-Griffin