Blab Business
Patagonia Sues Drag Queen Pattie Gonia Over Trademark Infringement
On January 21 2026, Patagonia Inc. filed a federal trademark‑infringement suit against Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Pattie Gonia Productions, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, Los Angeles. The suit seeks nominal damages of $1, the defendant’s attorney fees and investigative costs, and a jury trial set for June 2027 unless the parties reach an agreement.
Patagonia, a public‑benefit corporation founded in 1973, reported $1.5 billion in revenue for 2025, employs 4,000 people, operates 160 retail stores in 25 countries, and works with 6,000 wholesale partners worldwide. The company is owned by the Patagonia Purpose Trust (2 % voting stock) and the Holdfast Collective (98 % non‑voting stock), which directs most profits to environmental and community causes. Pattie Gonia, a drag queen and climate activist whose legal name is Wyn Wiley, has built a brand around environmental advocacy and online marketing.
The complaint alleges that in September 2025 the defendant applied for a federal trademark for “Pattie Gonia” to sell clothing, promote marketing, and secure endorsement deals. Patagonia argues that the mark is a near‑copy of its own “Patagonia” mark and that the defendant’s use of “PATTIE GONIA” on apparel, accessories, and marketing materials creates consumer confusion. The filing lists 12 distinct Patagonia trademarks covering consumer products, entertainment, and books, and claims that the defendant’s brand implies endorsement or collaboration with Patagonia.
Patagonia has previously taken action against other entities that used similar names—FRATAGONIA, CATAGONIA, PETAGONIA, PATROGONIA, and GATAGONIA—citing the doctrine of laches to emphasize that a delay in asserting trademark rights can weaken available remedies. According to the complaint, the defendant’s 2024 sales of “Pattie Gonia” branded apparel and the use of the name in partnership announcements with companies such as The North Face, REI, Google, Hoka, American Express, Smithsonian Museum, NASA, National Geographic, and Microsoft have further increased the risk of consumer confusion.
Parody protection may not apply when a mark is used for consumer goods. The complaint references the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Jack Daniel’s, Inc. v. VIP Products, Inc., which upheld Jack Daniel’s claim that a parody toy infringed its trademark. The court remanded the case to district court without imposing penalties, but the ruling clarified that parody does not automatically shield commercial use.
Patagonia offered a settlement that would require the defendant to withdraw all pending trademark applications, cease using any Patagonia logos, and stop selling or promoting apparel under the “Pattie Gonia” name. The defendant rejected the offer, arguing that it had never used Patagonia’s logos, fonts, or other brand elements and that the third condition would unduly restrict its partnership activities. The defendant’s statement on Instagram emphasized that its merchandise is “playful parody and fan art” and that drag culture relies on parody and humor.
In a statement released with the filing, Patagonia said it had engaged in open dialogue with Pattie Gonia for more than three years to explore ways the activist could continue environmental advocacy without infringing the company’s trademarks. Patagonia’s CEO, Ryan Gellert, noted that the company’s charter requires it to pursue socially and environmentally responsible practices, even as its products consume natural resources.
The case remains pending. No settlement has been reached, and the trial is set for June 2027. The outcome will determine whether a small activist brand can use a name that closely resembles a well‑known corporate trademark, and it may influence how other companies protect their intellectual property while engaging with public‑benefit partners.
Patagonia, a public‑benefit corporation founded in 1973, reported $1.5 billion in revenue for 2025, employs 4,000 people, operates 160 retail stores in 25 countries, and works with 6,000 wholesale partners worldwide. The company is owned by the Patagonia Purpose Trust (2 % voting stock) and the Holdfast Collective (98 % non‑voting stock), which directs most profits to environmental and community causes. Pattie Gonia, a drag queen and climate activist whose legal name is Wyn Wiley, has built a brand around environmental advocacy and online marketing.
The complaint alleges that in September 2025 the defendant applied for a federal trademark for “Pattie Gonia” to sell clothing, promote marketing, and secure endorsement deals. Patagonia argues that the mark is a near‑copy of its own “Patagonia” mark and that the defendant’s use of “PATTIE GONIA” on apparel, accessories, and marketing materials creates consumer confusion. The filing lists 12 distinct Patagonia trademarks covering consumer products, entertainment, and books, and claims that the defendant’s brand implies endorsement or collaboration with Patagonia.
Patagonia has previously taken action against other entities that used similar names—FRATAGONIA, CATAGONIA, PETAGONIA, PATROGONIA, and GATAGONIA—citing the doctrine of laches to emphasize that a delay in asserting trademark rights can weaken available remedies. According to the complaint, the defendant’s 2024 sales of “Pattie Gonia” branded apparel and the use of the name in partnership announcements with companies such as The North Face, REI, Google, Hoka, American Express, Smithsonian Museum, NASA, National Geographic, and Microsoft have further increased the risk of consumer confusion.
Parody protection may not apply when a mark is used for consumer goods. The complaint references the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Jack Daniel’s, Inc. v. VIP Products, Inc., which upheld Jack Daniel’s claim that a parody toy infringed its trademark. The court remanded the case to district court without imposing penalties, but the ruling clarified that parody does not automatically shield commercial use.
Patagonia offered a settlement that would require the defendant to withdraw all pending trademark applications, cease using any Patagonia logos, and stop selling or promoting apparel under the “Pattie Gonia” name. The defendant rejected the offer, arguing that it had never used Patagonia’s logos, fonts, or other brand elements and that the third condition would unduly restrict its partnership activities. The defendant’s statement on Instagram emphasized that its merchandise is “playful parody and fan art” and that drag culture relies on parody and humor.
In a statement released with the filing, Patagonia said it had engaged in open dialogue with Pattie Gonia for more than three years to explore ways the activist could continue environmental advocacy without infringing the company’s trademarks. Patagonia’s CEO, Ryan Gellert, noted that the company’s charter requires it to pursue socially and environmentally responsible practices, even as its products consume natural resources.
The case remains pending. No settlement has been reached, and the trial is set for June 2027. The outcome will determine whether a small activist brand can use a name that closely resembles a well‑known corporate trademark, and it may influence how other companies protect their intellectual property while engaging with public‑benefit partners.
