Outdoor clothing and gear giant Patagonia has initiated legal proceedings against the popular drag performer Pattie Gonia, alleging trademark infringement in a federal court in California. The lawsuit contends that the drag queen's branding and recent trademark application are creating confusion among consumers and directly competing with Patagonia's established business and advocacy efforts.
Legal Battle Over Brand Identity
Court documents filed on Wednesday reveal that Patagonia is challenging Pattie Gonia's application for exclusive rights to the PATTIE GONIA trademark. The application covers a broad range of activities including apparel, environmental sustainability advocacy, motivational speaking services, and LGBTQIA2S+ equality promotion. Patagonia argues that this move represents a significant shift from Pattie Gonia's previous activism-focused persona to a comprehensive commercial enterprise.
Allegations of Consumer Confusion
Patagonia has presented evidence suggesting that consumers are already struggling to distinguish between the two brands. The company included social media comments in their filing where users expressed uncertainty about whether Pattie Gonia content was affiliated with Patagonia advertising. One comment specifically noted: "I genuinely thought this was a Patagonia ad for too long... or is it?"
The outdoor retailer maintains that the visual and phonetic similarities between the brands are causing marketplace confusion. Patagonia claims that Pattie Gonia's branding "is nearly identical to the Patagonia word mark" and that this similarity is diluting their distinctive trademark that has been developed over fifty-three years of operation.
Breakdown of Previous Agreement
According to the legal filing, both parties had previously reached an understanding about how Pattie Gonia could continue advocacy work without interfering with Patagonia's brand identity. However, Patagonia alleges that this agreement has not been honored, with Pattie Gonia now seeking exclusive trademark ownership to commercialize products, endorsements, marketing campaigns, and advocacy initiatives.
"The trademark application reflects Pattie Gonia's departure from discrete use of a persona to engage in activism and confirms Defendants' intent instead to launch a wide-ranging commercial enterprise under the PATTIE GONIA brand," states the court document.
Legal Remedies Sought
Patagonia is requesting a trial by jury and seeking primarily injunctive relief rather than substantial financial compensation. The company has asked for "only nominal monetary damages" amounting to one dollar, emphasizing that "the harm Pattie Gonia has caused and will cause to the PATAGONIA brand is irreparable and cannot be remedied by money damages or other remedies short of an injunction."
Corporate Stance on Advocacy Alignment
Interestingly, the lawsuit acknowledges that Patagonia supports many of the environmental and social causes championed by Pattie Gonia. The filing explicitly states: "For all these reasons, Patagonia must protect its iconic trademarks, even when it supports or agrees with Pattie Gonia's views, message, or objectives." This suggests the legal action is purely about brand protection rather than ideological disagreement.
The case highlights the complex intersection of trademark law, commercial branding, and activist identity in contemporary consumer culture. Patagonia, founded in 1973, has built substantial brand equity around outdoor apparel and environmental advocacy, while Pattie Gonia has gained popularity by combining drag performance with environmental activism through hiking and outdoor content.
The Independent has contacted Pattie Gonia for comment regarding the lawsuit. This legal action represents a significant development in how established corporations navigate trademark protection when faced with similarly named entities engaged in overlapping advocacy spaces.
