← Back to blog
June 1, 2026

Legal English: Patagonia, Pattie Gonia, and US trademark law

Level: C2 [legal english]
First page of Patagonia's complaint against Pattie Gonia
Patagonia's complaint against Pattie Gonia.

The famous retailer Patagonia made headlines this month by suing a drag queen, "Pattie Gonia." Patagonia accuses Pattie Gonia of trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition. This is a public relations nightmare for Patagonia, which has built its whole identity around an inclusive, environmentally friendly approach. What's going on in this case, and how did this lawsuit happen?

Background: Trademark in the US, Compared to the EU

Basically, a "trademark" is any identifier used by a business to distinguish its product or service from others. (15 U.S.C. § 1127) When you see the word "Patagonia" on a shirt, the trademark tells you who made that shirt. The trademark protects that guarantee of origin. It protects both businesses and consumers from frauds and copycats.

In the United States, trademark rights are not primarily created by registration — they arise from customary use. If you have been using a mark in your area to sell goods or services, you may have a legal right to prevent others from using a similar mark in the same geographic area. Registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office strengthens that right nationwide by providing an exclusive right to distribute the goods or services listed under the trademark filing. The filing also allows you to use the registered trademark symbol, ®, instead of the general ™, which only asserts trademark ownership. (Congress.gov)

However, even an unregistered mark can be legally protected by "common law." This differs sharply from the EU system. With few, very narrow exceptions, the European Union follows a "first to file" system: whoever files a trademark application with the EUIPO first has superior rights, regardless of whether it has actually used the mark in commerce. (Lexology) The EU Trademark Regulation states explicitly that rights in a European Union Trade Mark "should not be obtained otherwise than by registration." (Lexology) In practical terms this means that a business can use a name in European commerce for years and still lose rights to it if a competitor files first. There is no EU-level equivalent of the US common law right: you cannot enforce an unregistered trademark across EU member states. (PatentPC)

The governing US statute is the Lanham Act of 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., but individual states have their own law for trademarks that don't fall under federal jurisdiction.

Infringement

In ordinary English, to "infringe" means to cross a line that you are not permitted to cross. The legal definition of "trademark infringement" specifically requires the use of someone else's trademark in a way that is "likely to cause confusion" between sources of goods and services.

Typically, courts do not require proof that anyone was actually confused: the standard is whether confusion is probable given the circumstances. How courts assess that probability varies by jurisdiction. Each regional circuit court of appeals has its own version of the test for "likelihood of confusion." New York federal courts apply the "Polaroid factors" (Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961)), while California federal courts apply the "Sleekcraft factors" (AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979)).

This is where the Patagonia/Pattie Gonia case becomes interesting. "Pattie Gonia" is a pun on "Patagonia." That's the joke. So the legal question is not whether the names are similar, but whether a consumer could believe that Pattie Gonia's merchandise is produced by, affiliated with, or endorsed by Patagonia. In its complaint, Patagonia argues that confusion has already occurred — and backs this up with screenshots of real consumer comments on Pattie Gonia's social media posts, including one reading "I genuinely thought this was a Patagonia ad for too long… or is it?" and another addressing Patagonia directly: "Love you patagonia, you're amazing. Thank you for protecting our parks." (Complaint, pp. 4–5)

Dilution

"Dilution" is a separate and more powerful legal claim available only to owners of "famous" trademarks. A mark is considered famous if it is widely recognized by the general public as a designation of the source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. (Congress.gov) Think of marks like Coca-Cola, Nike, or, arguably, Patagonia.

In common language, to "dilute" something is to weaken it or reduce its value. Whiskey can be diluted by adding water. U.S. law recognizes two types of trademark "dilution." "Dilution by blurring" occurs when the distinctiveness of a famous mark is reduced by association with another mark. "Dilution by tarnishment" occurs when the reputation of a famous mark is harmed through such an association. (Cornell LII)

Dilution does not require confusion, or even the likelihood of confusion. It doesn't require competition, or proof of actual economic injury. The owner of a famous mark is entitled to a court order to prevent anyone from using a mark that's likely to dilute the famous mark. (Cornell LII) The governing statute is the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

Is Parody a Defense?

Pattie Gonia could choose to argue that their merchandise constitutes a parody of Patagonia's. A parody is a kind of "transformative" work that imitates another artist in an exaggerated way, with the goal of mockery, critique, or entertainment. Parody is a recognized defense in trademark disputes, but it doesn't apply in every case.

In the leading case, Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007), a company selling dog toys called "Chewy Vuiton" won against Louis Vuitton on both infringement and dilution claims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed that the "Chewy Vuiton" toys were not likely to cause confusion.

However, on the dilution claim, the court held that although parody can be considered a "fair use," the defense does not automatically extend to a parody that functions as a trademark in its own right. That distinction matters in the Patagonia case: "Pattie Gonia" began as a performance persona but is now the subject of a trademark registration application covering clothing and commercial services. That may shift it from safe "parody" toward a more vulnerable "designation of source." (The Fashion Law)

The Duty to Police, and the Perceived Obligation to Sue

This is the part of trademark law that's most commonly misunderstood, including sometimes by lawyers advising clients. No U.S. law requires a trademark owner to sue an infringer; however, a trademark can be lost by "abandonment."

The Lanham Act defines abandonment to cover three distinct situations:

The most straightforward is non-use: a trademark is considered abandoned if its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use. Non-use for three consecutive years creates a rebuttable legal presumption that the mark has been abandoned. (15 U.S.C. § 1127; Patent Trademark Blog)

The second route is "naked licensing": if the trademark owner fails to exercise control over a licensee, a court will find that the trademark has been abandoned because it constitutes a "naked license." (Justia)

Third, a term can become "generic": when a brand name becomes so dominant that the public uses it as the ordinary word for the product type — rather than as a particular company's product — it loses its protection. Words like aspirin, escalator, and thermos were all once registered trademarks, but each was eventually declared generic because the public had stopped using it to identify a source and started using it to identify a category. (Patent Trademark Blog; UC Law Review)

To prevent abandonment, trademark lawyers often advise their clients to send "cease-and-desist" letters — formal written demands to stop infringing activity — whenever they become aware of unauthorized use. A cease-and-desist letter creates a legal record that the owner objected and did not "acquiesce," or condone the unauthorized use. Sending a letter costs little, whereas ignoring an infringement can cost a great deal.

However, "policing" does not mean litigating. Licensing a trademark can also support trademark protection. A "license" is a permission granted by the trademark owner to a third party to use the mark under defined conditions. The important legal caveat is that licensing must be accompanied by genuine quality control: if the trademark owner fails to exercise control over a licensee, or does not provide for supervision in the licensing agreement, a court will find that the trademark has been abandoned because it is a "naked license." So a license is legally sound, but it must include real oversight provisions — not just a nominal fee and a handshake. (Justia)

A well-drafted license with clear scope restrictions — no use of the original logo or typeface, an explicit disclaimer of any affiliation, restriction to specific product categories — would protect the mark while permitting the licensed use to continue. Companies can also enter "coexistence agreements," in which two parties with similar marks agree on the boundaries of each other's use. These are common and legally unproblematic, and it sounds like Patagonia attempted to establish just such a relationship. But that doesn't always work.

Patagonia versus Pattie Gonia

In the Patagonia case, the outdoor retailer claims it attempted to come to terms with Pattie Gonia, but that the performer finally crossed the line, forcing it to defend its trademark. The complaint reproduces the correspondence in full. In February 2022 — when Hydroflask was planning a collaboration with Pattie Gonia and contacted Patagonia to check for objections — all three parties met, and Patagonia says they reached a clear understanding: Pattie Gonia would not use Patagonia's logos, would not use Patagonia's typeface (the "belwe font"), and would not use the Pattie Gonia name "in any form on product." (Complaint, p. 17) Pattie Gonia's production manager replied to confirm the arrangement. (Complaint, p. 18)

Three years later, Patagonia discovered a commercial merchandise website — pattiegoniamerch.com — selling branded apparel, including t-shirts and sweatshirts for a "Pattie Gonia Hiking Club." (Complaint, p. 2) Patagonia wrote again in February 2025 to invoke the 2022 understanding. Pattie Gonia's February 14 response disputed Patagonia's account of what had been agreed, characterizing the name as a geographic reference and the logo use as "fan art" that had "never been sold." (Complaint, p. 21) Patagonia followed up in March 2025; it received no reply. (Complaint, p. 20)

In the months that followed, Pattie Gonia restocked the merchandise line, launched a theater and arena tour under the Pattie Gonia brand, and — according to the complaint — continued displaying versions of Patagonia's P-6 mountain logo. At an Out Magazine event in November 2025, Pattie Gonia wore an outfit featuring a replica of the P-6 logo alongside the Pattie Gonia trademark. (Complaint, p. 24) At a TED Talk, she told the audience that many of them were wearing "my merch," then added that "Patagonia vests are indeed very TED drag." (Complaint, p. 24)

On September 21, 2025, Pattie Gonia Productions filed to register PATTIE GONIA as a trademark across five classes: recorded music, stickers and posters, clothing, marketing services, and live entertainment including motivational speaking in the fields of equality and environmentalism. (Complaint, p. 5) That application covers categories in which Patagonia itself holds registrations going back to 1974. A trademark registration, if granted, would create rights enforceable against Patagonia itself. Patagonia filed suit the following January.

It is worth noting that this is not the first time Patagonia has been forced to act against similar marks. The complaint lists prior enforcement actions against FRATAGONIA, CATAGONIA, PETAGONIA, PETROGONIA, and GATAGONIA — some from oil industry supporters, some from paramilitary merchandise sellers. (Complaint, p. 25) Patagonia's point is that consistent enforcement, regardless of the infringer's politics or values, is what keeps the mark legally defensible. Selective enforcement — suing the oil industry parody but letting the environmentalist one go — could itself become a legal vulnerability.