Patagonia Sues Drag Queen For $1 For Trademark Violation

[RAMROD 112,346]

Patagonia — the Ventura-based outdoor clothing company woven deeply into California’s environmental and retail landscape — is suing drag queen and climate advocate Pattie Gonia over what it calls unlawful use of its trademarks and mountain imagery.

The company filed its federal complaint on Jan. 21, arguing that Pattie Gonia’s branded merchandise and occasional use of a Patagonia‑style logo could lead consumers to believe the activist’s products or projects are backed by the company.

Pattie Gonia, the performance persona of Nebraska-raised photographer Wyn Wiley, did not respond to a request from the USA TODAY Network's Ventura County Star for an interview on Jan. 21.

According to Patagonia’s lawsuit, the company first contacted Wiley’s team in early 2022 after learning Pattie Gonia was pursuing branded partnerships with Hydroflask and The North Face. Patagonia says Hydroflask worried the collaborations might wrongly imply Patagonia’s involvement.

Emails in the filing show Patagonia asking Pattie Gonia to avoid its fonts, mountain imagery and any “Pattie Gonia” merchandise. Wiley’s team replied they would “keep note of it.”

By 2024, however, Pattie Gonia was selling T‑shirts and sweatshirts with her name. Patagonia says that Wiley violated the earlier understanding; Wiley’s team says Patagonia’s version of that agreement is “incorrect.”

Wiley told Patagonia in 2022 that any look‑alike designs were fan art created by supporters and never sold, according to the company’s exhibits. Her current merchandise no longer uses a Patagonia‑style mountain logo, though she has worn and handed out stickers featuring similar imagery.

Trademark experts say the dispute lands squarely in today’s murky world of personal branding. “It’s complicated,” said UCLA law professor Mark McKenna, noting the rise of creators who trademark their stage names for clothing, events, and online content.

McKenna said consumers are unlikely to think Pattie Gonia’s apparel is made by Patagonia — but they might assume some kind of collaboration, which is where legal risk grows.

Patagonia is seeking $1 in damages plus attorney fees. More importantly, it wants Wiley barred from selling products that infringe on its trademarks and from pursuing exclusive rights to the “Pattie Gonia” name.

 

https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/nation/california/2026/01/22/patagonia-sues-pattie-gonia-trademark-california/88307449007/

[Ladle Ghoulash 33,954]

Kind of an interesting case because it seems like they are more or less hopeful that the queen will back down without really putting up any kind of a fight because the legal framework for this and what they would have to go through in order to win this case is complicated, probably unflattering and/or damaging to their brand within the LGBTQ community, and they are certainly not assured to win. 
 

For example, as the OP already states, one of the legal standards that Patagonia would have to meet would be that there is a meaningful possibility that a consumer may confuse the drag queen’s brand with Patagonia. Given that drag queen merch is usually only available in very niche corners of the Internet, that consumer, facing part of the argument basically completely falls apart. 
 

Now, if they want to try to make the argument that consumer is being confused about the queen being in collaboration with the brand is damaging to the brand, what becomes difficult is articulating specifically *how* the association is damaging to the brand. It would be very easy for observers to read into that argument that Patagonia doesn’t want to be affiliated with drag queens, for one, which could be perceived as being intolerant or homophobic. 
 

They may argue that because this queen is an activist they don’t want consumers to assume that this queen’s political stances are the stances of the brand, and that the brand is attempting to remain a political, but given the brands long-standing history of environmental advocacy that doesn’t really square up with their brand image. So if I were the defense attorney I would push Patagonia to site specific political positions that the queen has a spouse that they find objectionable which puts them in a very uncomfortable position in terms of PR.

Lastly, in terms of parody and fair use laws, I would think that this queen is pretty squarely in the clear here so I don’t even think that that’s necessarily on the table.

TL;DR: Patagonia is hoping that because they have infinitely more money than this drag queen that they can intimidate her from divorcing herself from any brand affiliated imagery without having to take it to court out of fear of incurring massive legal fees.

[Taumaturg0 886]

the Argentine and Chilean states should sue the brand tbh, just for the diservice their dull clothing items make to such a beautiful region 

Edited Friday at 05:10 PM by Taumaturg0

[PartySick 165,542]

Am I having a stroke or was it said both in the title and OP that they're seeking $1 (as in one single dollar) in damages?

Has my reading comprehension finally left me?

[Murakami27 6,494]

Isn't there a law for fair use / parody? Yes, the name Pattie Gonia is a clear play of Patagonia, but aint nobody going to be confused with it. This isn't like Lexi Love's trademark case where she has the exact same name and spelling of the **** star. Pattie Gonia is spelled completely differently. I don't see how they can argue there would be any confusion.

[Flippy 13,433]

14 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Am I having a stroke or was it said both in the title and OP that they're seeking $1 (as in one single dollar) in damages?

Has my reading comprehension finally left me?

My thoughts exactly

[Togekiss 2,617]

25 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Am I having a stroke or was it said both in the title and OP that they're seeking $1 (as in one single dollar) in damages?

Has my reading comprehension finally left me?

They’re seeking a win on principle rather than claiming they’ve suffered any material damages

[PartySick 165,542]

41 minutes ago, Togekiss said:

They’re seeking a win on principle rather than claiming they’ve suffered any material damages

Sounds frivolous and pointless

[Bronco 16,271]

9 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Sounds frivolous and pointless

They want a win that doesn't hurt their brand image.

A fullscale civil suit against a drag queen would be bad PR (and sadly good PR) that could impact sales and stocks. 

A win on principle gets Pattie to stop and with zero percieved harm to Pattie. Totally minimises PR issues while achieving their goal.

[PartySick 165,542]

3 minutes ago, Bronco said:

They want a win that doesn't hurt their brand image.

A fullscale civil suit against a drag queen would be bad PR (and sadly good PR) that could impact sales and stocks. 

A win on principle gets Pattie to stop and with zero percieved harm to Pattie. Totally minimises PR issues while achieving their goal.

Would a cease and desist not suffice?  

"We respect everything you do but we'd very much like to retain creative control of our brand so please stop using our logo" seems plenty reasonable

Idk, Idrc, a whole ass lawsuit just sounds goofy idk  

[RAMROD 112,346]

3 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Would a cease and desist not suffice?  

"We respect everything you do but we'd very much like to retain creative control of our brand so please stop using our logo" seems plenty reasonable

Idk, Idrc, a whole ass lawsuit just sounds goofy idk  

It's about establishing precedent. It is usually a strategic move to secure a binding legal victory, and minimize public relations damage, rather than seeking financial compensation A lawsuit for "nominal damages" ($1) acknowledges a legal right was violated without requiring proof of significant financial harm. 

A lawsuit, even for $1, can result in a court-ordered injunction, making the infringer legally prohibited from using the copyrighted work again. Suing for $1 shows that the brand is defending its rights, not trying to ruin an individual financially. If a brand sends a C&D and the infringer ignores it, they have to sue anyway. By suing for $1, they can sometimes gain "prevailing party" status, making it easier to recover attorney's fees later. It also establishes a formal record of the violation if the infringer continues to act illegally. Litigation is very expensive. Suing for a nominal amount ($1) often aims for a quick judgment or settlement, avoiding a long, costly trial for damages while still achieving the desired legal stop to the infringing activity.

I am sure as huge company, they have been advised to go this path by their legal team for a reason.

[monstertoronto 10,797]

28 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Sounds frivolous and pointless

They want to control the use of the name or associations with their company. They don’t care about winning money from her, they just want to stop her actions. Thats why it’ s just a dollar. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 33,954]

2 hours ago, PartySick said:

Am I having a stroke or was it said both in the title and OP that they're seeking $1 (as in one single dollar) in damages?

Has my reading comprehension finally left me?

They’re suing for $1 because they don’t want to come across as overly aggressive/picking on the little guy, but are going public with the charges because they both want to intimidate the queen and also want to imply that they could do this the “easy” way (pay $1, comply with our demands) or the “hard” way (we take you to court and you get saddled with mountains of legal fees, while this is a drop in the bucket for us). 

[Ladle Ghoulash 33,954]

56 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Would a cease and desist not suffice?  

"We respect everything you do but we'd very much like to retain creative control of our brand so please stop using our logo" seems plenty reasonable

Idk, Idrc, a whole ass lawsuit just sounds goofy idk  

They had already contacted her about use of brand-adjacent imagery and she didn’t comply, which is why they escalated, I think. 

[PartySick 165,542]

13 replies to this thread, nearly all of them quoting me

I'm sorry I asked