Katy Perry sparks political controversy in Taiwan over sunflower outfit

The pop star's dress was taken as a show of support for the 2014 Sunflower Student Movement

Katy Perry has become embroiled in a political controversy in Taiwan after one of her outfits was taken as a political statement.

The pop star recently played a show in Taipei, Taiwan (officially the Republic of China) on April 28. Although an independent nation, many regard Taiwan as part of the mainland People’s Republic of China.

Perry wore a sunflower dress (pictured above) at her gig, which some saw as a show of support for the 2014 Sunflower Student Movement, which saw a group of students occupied Taiwan’s parliament for 23 days in a protest against trade agreements with China. Perry also draped herself in the Taiwanese flag during her performance. See an image of that beneath.


E! report that one fan wrote on Chinese microblogging site Sina Weibo, “I suppose [Perry] has no chance to come to the mainland anymore, though she might not care. These performers who intervene in other countries’ politics are the most annoying,” while another said on Twitter, “I am laugh-crying at Taiwan anti-China dissidents ‘moved to tears’ because Katy Perry’s stylist accidentally committed her to their cause.”

Rolling Stone have speculated that Perry may be banned from performing in China as a result. However, it’s been noted that Perry has worn the exact same outfit numerous times elsewhere on her ‘Prism’ world tour.


Katy Perry’s attempt to trademark the design of the Left Shark backing dancer costume from her Super Bowl halftime show has been rejected by the US Trademark Office.

The singer’s Super Bowl half-time show was the most viewed in the event’s history. Perry filed a trademark application for the costume after the back up dancer dressed in the shark costume became a viral hit due to his uncoordinated dancing.

In March, the singer released her own Left Shark onesies, while also blocking a website from selling 3D models of internet sensation. However, Trademark examiner David Collier deemed in a review of the claim that the design “identifies only a particular character; it does not function as a service mark to identify and distinguish applicant’s services from those of others and to indicate the source of applicant’s services.”