Photograph: Sarah Silbiger/The Washington Publish through Getty Photographs
In 2018, Wyn Wiley was on a backpacking journey after they placed on a pair of excessive heels. Throughout that journey, Pattie Gonia, Wiley’s drag persona, was born. Since then, Pattie Gonia has not solely amassed 1.8 million Instagram followers however launched a nonprofit for “allyship within the outdoor.” She has talked about local weather change at drag reveals throughout the U.S., elevating almost $4 million for charity. Her movies of a 100-mile hike in drag final fall raised $1.2 million. However Pattie Gonia says their environmental work is now endangered by Patagonia, the outdoor-gear big that has espoused comparable environmentalist values. The clothes firm, which reported $1.47 billion in gross sales through the 2024–25 fiscal yr, filed a trademark lawsuit towards Pattie Gonia and her rising model on January 21, 2026.
Patagonia has claimed it filed swimsuit “in response” to her latest trademark utility. Its court docket papers declare that she desires to trademark Pattie Gonia for gadgets corresponding to clothes and on-line advertising and marketing companies to advertise environmental causes and LGBTQ rights, in addition to “neighborhood sporting and cultural occasions … and conducting path and climbing occasions” and leisure. The 53-year-old firm claims that its model identification is at stake, alleging that Pattie Gonia’s merch might confuse costumers. After months of silence on the lawsuit, Pattie Gonia just lately hit again, telling her loyal followers, “This isn’t a model battle. It is a company attempting to erase an activist.” Patagonia, she insists, is attempting to “take away” her activism and profession. The Patagonia–vs.–Pattie Gonia court docket case and Pattie Gonia–vs.–Patagonia public-opinion case are very completely different and mired of their respective intricacies. Vulture spoke with a number of intellectual-property specialists to determine what’s Pata-going on.
Patagonia appears to assume Pattie is attempting to steal its model. Regardless of its being a virtually $1.5 billion firm, it seems intimidated by the creator. Patagonia believes that Pattie Gonia’s 2024 trademark utility reveals a “departure from discrete use of a persona to have interaction in activism” and an intent “to launch a wideranging industrial enterprise beneath the PATTIE GONIA model.” The corporate made positive to notice that it has no difficulty along with her “drag and advocacy,” however claims it had reached a take care of Pattie Gonia for her to not use the Pattie Gonia identify on merchandise as a result of Pattie’s transfer towards merch “has already confused customers, and can proceed to confuse customers, about Patagonia’s position in producing or sponsoring Pattie Gonia’s merchandise, occasions and public appearances.” Patagonia included a number of photographs in its lawsuit displaying a number of attire gadgets with the identify “Pattie Gonia,” which allegedly invoke the corporate’s rainbow mountain-ridge emblem.
A water-bottle firm allegedly advised Patagonia a couple of potential collaboration with Pattie Gonia, which massive Patagonia didn’t like. The attire firm claims that everybody then mentioned restrictions on “the usage of” Pattie Gonia to forestall confusion. “Pattie Gonia confirmed an understanding that she should chorus from promoting PATTIE GONIA–branded merchandise or utilizing fonts or designs that duplicate, or are considerably much like, Patagonia’s logos,” the corporate mentioned in its civil grievance. Patagonia alleges that Pattie Gonia ignored this settlement, “culminating in her trademark utility.” Patagonia included a screenshot of Pattie’s October 2025 Instagram video the place she wears gloves which have a really comparable emblem to the model’s. Pattie Gonia maintains that the corporate’s depiction of their settlement isn’t right.
“Once I was collaborating with a 3rd social gathering, Patagonia requested me to comply with sure phrases, and I did. That wasn’t a broad settlement about my future,” she mentioned on Insta. For what it’s value, Patagonia mentioned, “We want this lawsuit had not been obligatory, and we need to acknowledge any damage it has prompted, particularly within the LGBTQ+ neighborhood.” The corporate mentioned it desires to resolve issues if Pattie Gonia withdraws trademark purposes and stops promoting clothes as Pattie Gonia. “If we are able to agree on this, we are able to work out the whole lot else, and Pattie Gonia might proceed as a performer and activist. We share widespread floor with them, together with the aim of saving our house planet and making a extra inclusive outdoor.”
Mental-property specialists say that parody has particular parameters in the case of surviving infringement claims. “In case you’re going to parody a mark, you’re normally making enjoyable of what it’s that the model does,” mentioned Mark Mizrahi, a companion with agency Saul Ewing with nearly three many years of expertise. A parody of Gucci, for instance, would possibly poke enjoyable at consumerism. However “utilizing another person’s identify or model as a springboard for reputation is just not essentially parody.” That is why culture-jammers can get away with invoking firm logos or model names — they’re making a social commentary. “You’re utilizing the model, the famousness of the model, to get your message out,” he mentioned.
Tim Holbrook, a professor at College of Denver Sturm Faculty of Legislation, voiced comparable sentiments, noting that this lack of name critique would possibly undermine Pattie Gonia’s capability to promote customized merchandise. “Parody requires two seemingly inconsistent issues. It’s making the buyer conscious of the unique model, but in addition making clear that the parodist is just not the unique model,” Holbrook mentioned. “In that kind of bizarre dynamic, the parody must be commenting on the unique model … some kind of critique. In the event that they’re simply alluding to the unique model, that approaches satire and never parody.” Holbrook mentioned that “from what I’ve seen from her attire, there’s nothing the place she’s taking the attire firm to activity for something or criticizing them.” Relatively, it seems that she is “advocating for kind of environmental causes, however that’s truly in alignment with Patagonia, the attire firm. So there’s not, in my opinion, a powerful parody argument.”
Pattie Gonia mentioned on Instagram that she has “by no means used their emblem, font, or something from their model on our merch web site” and that the model “cherry-picks a number of examples of playful parody and fan artwork and tries to spin these into some type of huge use of their emblem.” “Drag is constructed on parody puns and jokes, however I’m keen to by no means parody their emblem ever once more, a.okay.a. by no means give them free PR ever once more.” In a video posted on Instagram, Pattie Gonia mentioned that she sought trademark protections after seeing one other drag performer’s identify was stolen. She additionally supplied to surrender her trademark utility if Patagonia backed off and dropped the swimsuit.
“Satire is utilizing the unique for criticism, however the unique is just not the goal of the criticism,” Holbrook mentioned. “Parody is utilizing the unique to critique or touch upon the unique. A profitable parody should each recall to mind the unique whereas additionally making clear it’s not the unique through the critique.” He referred to a authorized dispute involving The Cat NOT within the Hat!: A Parody. The ebook detailed O.J. Simpson’s homicide trial within the type of Dr. Seuss’s traditional The Cat within the Hat. A court docket decided that the previous infringed on Seuss’s intellectual-property rights. “That was simply the best way that they launched the subject material, it was not commentary on Dr. Seuss, in order that strategy is extra of satire,” he mentioned. That normally fails in the case of intellectual-property rights claims, he mentioned, and “is just not deemed protected by the First Modification, since you didn’t want to make use of the IP rights holders’ rights so as to make that commentary.”
As a lot of a stretch because it may appear for folks to confuse Pattie Gonia and Patagonia, the corporate is attempting to make that case. Peter Nicolas, the William L. Dwyer endowed chair in legislation on the College of Washington, mentioned that emblems contain issues corresponding to “a phrase, a reputation, an emblem, a emblem, or some mixture of these” utilized in commerce to promote items, “and for a really explicit goal to determine and distinguish your items and point out the supply of these items.” Nicolas mentioned an individual “could make a trademark infringement declare if customers is likely to be confused, in the event that they’re going to have a look at your product they usually’re going to assume it got here from me.” Customers would possibly assume that what they’re shopping for is related to the top quality an unique model is understood for, “then possibly they’re going to be shocked or disillusioned after they get house and discover out it’s not truly from you — that’s type of a standard trademark infringement case.” There are variations of this. Even when there’s no confusion — and the trademark is so well-known it is likely to be thought of well-known — somebody might be responsible for watering down the unique model. “Patagonia, the attire model firm, is making each claims.” Nicolas mentioned that to be honest, it’s true that for those who don’t sue when one individual makes use of it, then “it turns into quite a bit more durable to sue different folks afterward, the place the infringement could also be extra vital.” That mentioned, this authorized dispute doesn’t appear to be all that nice for Patagonia. “It’s a little bit of a PR nightmare for the clothes firm,” he mentioned. A “pleasant decision” that ends issues shortly would possibly effectively be Patagonia’s greatest transfer.
Join the Vulture Day by day
An leisure e-newsletter for the pop-culture obsessed.
Vox Media, LLC Phrases and Privateness Discover