Katy Perry is suing Australian designer Katie Perry — again

It’s a Perry sticky situation.

Katy Perry has launched yet another attack in her ongoing battle with Down Under designer Katie Perry, after the “I Kissed a Girl” songstress was tried and found guilty earlier this year of infringing on the duds maker’s Australian trademark.

The “TGIF” singer has now filed for an appeal, after losing to the apparel entrepreneur in April.

According to the Aussie Perry, who now goes by the last name Taylor, the two initially tangled in 2009. That’s when the singer and her representatives issued a cease-and-desist letter and attempted to take over the Australian-based brand, which had been in operation since 2007.

“They stated that I should immediately stop trading under this name,” wrote Taylor in a blog post. “Withdraw all my clothes and sign a document drafted by them to say from now on I will never trade under this name ever again.

Taylor said that when she refused to comply, Perry’s camp “chose to simply disregard” her existence and her Australian trademark rights, filling chain stores across the country with Perry merch and other “infringing articles.”

The Post reached out to Perry for comment.

Speaking to the Post, Taylor called the whole ordeal “a David and Goliath case,” referring to the singer’s legal muscle versus Taylor, a mother of two, was only able to fight back with the help of an Australian firm, Litigation Capital Management Limited (LCM), that helps fund legal disputes.

According to the designer, several of the “Waking Up in Vegas’” singer’s fans trolled and harassed her and her family during the court proceedings.

Taylor also recalled one painful moment at trial when she was forced to read emails between the singer and her manager where Perry called the designer a “dumb b–ch.”

The singer’s manager attempted to explain away the comments.

“Artists are emotional people. Emotions are what drive their talent,” said manager Steven Jensen at the time. “That was an emotional response, not directed at Ms.Taylor personally.”

After months of deliberation, Australian Federal Court sided with Taylor, who called it “a win for small business.”

“Not only have I fought for myself, but I fought for small businesses in this country,” wrote the designer. “Many of them started by women, who can find themselves up against overseas entities who have much more financial power than we do.”

Her spring victory, however, was short-lived — Perry’s legal team filed their appeal just months later, earlier this summer.

According to Taylor, she was putting her children to bed when the fateful email came through.

“This is a case that I thought had an end in sight,” lamented Taylor. “And yet the singer has chosen to continue to drag it out.”

“My label is my future, my dream, my livelihood,” continued Taylor.”And now there is a chance my trademark could be taken away.”

Taylor told the Post that she is expected back in court with the singer in either November or December.

Talking to RadarOnline, Taylor revealed that has no plans to “stand down” in her feud against the “American Idol” judge.

“It’s not in my nature. I’m a fighter and will always stand up for the underdog,” Taylor told the news outlet adding that she wants “to be a role model” for her children.

Since receiving the email containing the appeal, Taylor has reportedly suffered insomnia and nightmares.

In addition, Taylor claims the singer’s “Hot n Cold” antics have “taken time away from my kids and my business.”

“There are far better ways for a fashion brand to get PR than having to go through absolute h–l,” slammed Taylor when asked by RadarOnline if the whole situation was a stunt.

Taylor isn’t the only person to be “Unconditionally” attacked by Perry.

The pop singer and long-time fiancé Orlando Bloom caused some “Fireworks” when they reportedly sued an 83-year-old veteran who claimed he sold the property to the couple during a time when he “lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature and probable consequences of the contract.”

In documents obtained by The Post, Carl Westcott claims that a July 14, 2020 contract for the sale of his home was done while he was not of sound mind and body.

Westcott, who had moved into the property mere months before selling to the A-list couple, claimed he intended to “spend the rest of his life” in the home.

The army vet claimed that due to his age, poor health from Huntington’s disease and “a major six-hour surgery less than a week before the proposed contract,” it had “seriously impaired [his] mental faculties” and attempted to void the sale.

A lawyer for the couple later told the ailing vet that neither Perry nor Bloom were willing to walk away from the exquisite property.

The case bears striking similarities to another lawsuit involving Perry when she tried to evict several aging nuns.

In 2015, the not-so “Teenage Dream” vocalist sued the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Los Feliz after they failed to move out of the medieval Spanish-Gothic-Tudor estate that was given to Perry, who ultimately won the case in 2016.

The feud ended in 2018, when Sister Catherine Rose Holzman — who was among the nuns battling Perry and the Archdiocese —  died in court.