Imitation is the highest form of flattery… until you copy a trademark. The dispute between the apparel company Patagonia and drag queen and environmental activist Pattie Gonia is an important reminder of the line trademark law draws when imitation begins functioning as a source identifier.
Since her inception in 2018, Wyn Wiley’s performance and climate activism as Pattie Gonia has coexisted peacefully with the outdoor giant Patagonia. Patagonia claims the two parties even negotiated a truce in 2022, under which it permitted Wiley to use the “Pattie Gonia” name for drag performances, social media storytelling, and environmental non-profit advocacy, as long as Gonia agreed to refrain from selling branded apparel or attempting to register the name commercially. Wiley’s team has since disputed this, arguing that no formal, binding truce was ever locked down.
So, what changed?
The uneasy peace shattered when Pattie Gonia filed a formal trademark application with the USPTO in late 2025 and launched a merchandise line. In response, Patagonia escalated the matter to federal court in early 2026. Interestingly, Patagonia isn’t looking to bankrupt a fellow climate activist—they are suing for just $1 in nominal damages. Their goal isn’t financial; it’s strictly regulatory.
This transition marks a critical shift in how the name was being used. While a parody name is generally protected under free speech, that protection changes the moment the parody starts acting as a brand name to sell consumer goods. Here, putting “Pattie Gonia” on clothing might lead consumers to question whether the two are collaborating or which brand they are buying. That consumer confusion triggers trademark infringement.
In the discourse surrounding this case, people have asked how the company Patagonia was able to secure its trademark if they are named after a geographic region. Patagonia secured their mark because their usage is considered “arbitrary”. While named for the South American mountain range, the clothes aren’t manufactured or primarily sourced there. Instead, the company treats the geographic region as solely a brand name identifying the company. It’s the same way the company Amazon can name itself after the river and rainforest.
The fallout of the lawsuit has played out on social media. Pattie Gonia has released a video offering to drop the trademark if Patagonia withdraws the lawsuit. A day later, Patagonia stated they would end the matter if Pattie Gonia withdrew all trademark applications, stopped using the Patagonia logo, and ceased sale of merchandise as Pattie Gonia. Currently, both parties seem steadfast in their positions and prepared to play this out in court.
This case will be monumental to the future of both parties. While Pattie Gonia seeks to defend her legacy of climate activism and social justice, Patagonia must defend their trademark at the risk of losing it to trademark erosion.
Recent Comments