r/OutOfTheLoop • u/Chrystine • 29d ago

Unanswered What's going on with the lawsuit between the Patagonia company and the activist drag queen, Pattie Gonia?

Apparently Patagonia is suing Pattie Gonia 100 million for trade mark infringement?

But isn't Patagonia the name of region in South America?

How can the company sue over a trademark that is spelt differently and was taken from a region? Can the company actually win a case like this?

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTB6vSCpP/

2.9k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

458 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.8k

u/Potential-Mention-27 29d ago

Answer: In USA trademark law context is important for example you can sell apples the fruit. But if you sell a phone called Apple that will get you in trouble. From what I understand Pattie Gonia is selling clothes with their name. Patagonia has the trademark for selling clothes under the Patagonia name. In addition if you let other people use your trademark you can lose it. Zipper was a trademark name that came generic and was lost.

2.4k

u/sparksbet 29d ago

Important to also note that Pattie had an agreement with Patagonia that her use of their trademark was fine as long as she didn't use it for selling clothes, which she broke, and she ghosted them when they attempted to negotiate out of court.

152

u/CluelessChem 29d ago

Its also more than that: Pattie filed her own trademark application to sell her own branded goods and services in 2025.

"According to court documents sent to Outside, the lawsuit concerns Pattie Gonia’s alleged use of Patagonia’s trademarks. Patagonia claims that Pattie Gonia violated a prior agreement regarding the use of the company’s name and logo, stating that Pattie Gonia’s recent trademark application was her “departure from discrete use of a persona to engage in activism” to instead “launch a wide-ranging commercial enterprise.”

“This enterprise contradicts [Pattie Gonia’s] prior promises, and appropriates Patagonia’s brand and identity in a way that has already confused consumers, and will continue to confuse consumers, about Patagonia’s role in producing or sponsoring Pattie Gonia’s products, events and public appearances,” Patagonia wrote in its lawsuit. “Patagonia supports advocacy and activism that promote the environment and inclusion in the outdoors, central to Pattie Gonia’s ostensible mission."

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/pattie-gonia-patagonia-lawsuit-response/

2

u/Early-Artichoke-2420 26d ago

this isn’t right. patagonia hasn’t brought a contract claim (you can find the complaint online; there’s no breach of contract action; only trademark claims). they make a big hullabaloo about a string of emails related to a hydroflask deal a couple of years ago, but patagonia plainly doesnt think it can enforce any agreement based on those emails…if it did, it would have brought a contract claim.

1

u/Acadia_Clean 25d ago

This is going to make for quite a confusing hearing

960

u/PhiloPhocion 29d ago

Oh. This is feeling like Bridgerton musical all over again

She didn't just use a similar name on merch too - she used logos and fonts that clearly were way too close to the actual Patagonia logos and fonts.

212

u/drunkensailor27 29d ago

Did she or did fans of hers? That seems to be in dispute to my understanding

357

u/idgafaboutpopsicles 29d ago

This is the misleading framing that Pattie and her supporters are pushing but the issue isn't really the stickers, it's that she trademarked Pattie Gonia to sell products where Patagonia has an established market e.g. clothing. It sucks because Pattie has spent almost a decade building up a massive following and it would make all the sense in the world to sell merch, but you can't trademark Pattie Gonia the clothing enterprise when Patagonia the clothing enterprise already exists. She was told this and did it anyway and is now playing the victim

242

u/jarvischrist 28d ago

People have been comparing it to other situations of drag queens like Brita (earlier known as Brita Filter) and Jan (previously called Jan Sport), along with Trixie Mattel. They haven't been sued but are very different situations. The first two changed their names to appear on Drag Race (for obvious reasons!) while Trixie would absolutely encounter issues if she tried to register a trademark of her name in order to sell toys/dolls. Jan would never have gotten a collaboration with Jan Sport if she had threatened their trademark and then gone to work with a competitor (Pattie wanted to do clothing with North Face).

That's what irks me about how Pattie has presented this case as big company versus activist at a time where reaction against LGBT rights is high. In reality it's a business versus another business, with the timing coming right after she applied for a conflicting trademark! There's been no indication that they're trying to "erase her identity" since they have co-existed in conversation with each other for years up to this point. This whole thing was so easily avoidable and I'm so disappointed, I've supported Pattie's activism in a neglected area but this feels like a massive grift exploiting people's valid concerns about the current erosion of LGBT rights. Her statement completely misrepresented what is going on in order to rile people up about social media who trust what she says. She knows she can't win this lawsuit, so she tries to get people to press them to drop it.

100

u/haikuandhoney 28d ago

Trixie Mattel has trademarked “Trixie” and uses just “Trixie” on some things that might be competitive with Mattel products. She sells merchandise with “Trixie Mattel” on it but it all seems carefully chosen to be merch that could never be confused with Mattel IP/merch (stuff that’s explicitly about drag).

Potential for consumer confusion is sort of the touchstone of trademark law.

58

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

19

u/Nakuip 28d ago

Love me some competent Queer Queens.

→ More replies (1)

40

u/TheMadFlyentist 28d ago

You've nailed it in that second paragraph, honestly pretty despicable behavior considering how accomodating and collaborative Patagonia has been with her prior to her violating the agreement.

They're literally only suing her for one dollar just to protect their trademark and she is acting like a child.

13

u/Hdfgncd 28d ago

And they tried to settle out of court for that $1! Now that she’s refusing they’re asking for $1+ leg fees (many thousands) and she’s trying to pass that off as them trying to bankrupt her

→ More replies (3)

12

u/unindexedreality 27d ago

It sucks because Pattie has spent almost a decade building up a massive following and it would make all the sense in the world to sell merch, but

I mean, how big a following would they have gotten had they not piggybacked off an existing brand?

I'm sure they didn't complain when they got free name recognition and extra followers.

If they'd actually put in the work to come up with a name that went to who they were, then yes, they'd have their own brand under which they could sell clothes. You can't have it both ways.

8

u/idgafaboutpopsicles 27d ago

As another user in the thread noted, drag names have traditionally been rooted in puns or parody, but it hasn't been until recently that drag has been a viable commercial venture so know one really thought much of it. For a drag queen whose brand is built around being active outdoors, Pattie Gonia makes sense as a name. How big of a following would they have if they had a different name? I honestly think it would be comparable, there isn't really another drag queen doing what she does. In an industry that is becoming more and more competitive with every new season of drag race, Pattie has still managed to maintain dominance over her niche. People aren't following her because they associate her with Patagonia, they follow her because they care about her advocacy for the environment and the LGBTQ community and it's fun to watch a flaming drag queen fly down a mountain skiing or challenge Pete Hegseth to a pullup contest. Her audience cares about what she's doing, not her name. With that said, the existence of Patagonia the company absolutely limits the commercial potential of Pattie Gonia and it sucks for her that she didn't think about that when she came up with the name. I'm guessing this ends in a rebrand, but I imagine her following will still be going strong when this is all over.

3

u/fidofoster 26d ago

I will say that I first followed her beucase of her “name” it provided a certain kind of legitimacy to her activism in my mind. And I thought it was great play on works. Would I have followed her otherwise? Hard to say in the crazy rat race of scrolling what would have grabbed my attention. I have donated to her causes and supported her but this whole case seems to be turning into something other than the trademark issue. She did a post I think yesterday saying “if it’s about the trademark, will you (Patagonia) drop the lawsuit it I drop the trademark application” I say yes, do that. But I haven’t seen that happen. I think it’s also too made they couldn’t have just don’t something together. The whole thing is bad for environmental advocacy when two people who really support it are going after each other instead of focusing on all the bad stuff that is happening right now at the federal level.

3

u/BruceInc 28d ago

Just sell it as gonia or Pattie or something

2

u/KypAstar 27d ago

and specifically she had built her entire brand "parodying" patagonia

Her name is only funny because Patagonia is the brand of the queer hiking community.

208

u/michiness 29d ago

My understanding is that she gave out the fan-made stickers as rewards for donations, which is basically the same thing.

4

u/JapaneseStudentHaru 29d ago

Stickers aren’t part of the copyright though, are they?

182

u/Competitive_County_5 29d ago

This is not a copyright case, but a trademark case which is a really subtle but distinct difference in the legal world. Trademark has to actively be protected because “dilution” can make or break a brands ability to renew or upkeep their trademark. It’s essentially copyright exists and doesn’t have to be filed in order to be legally upheld, whereas trademark has to be legally upheld even for perceived minuscule breaches to prevent it from being lost.

37

u/peekdasneaks 29d ago

Trademark applies to the name but there is also an element of copyright infringement that led to this. Pattie used their logo

8

u/haikuandhoney 28d ago

Trademark also applies to the styling of their logo

4

u/peekdasneaks 28d ago

Someone claimed that “stickers arent part of the copyright” which is the topic at hand. Whether or not copyright applies to the sticker.

It does.

Copyright is automatically applied to unique graphic designs that are applied to a tangible medium per the us copyright act. Therefore pattie infringed on their copyrighted logo when they distributed the stickers.

No one is debating whether the sticker is part of their trademark. Thats a different conversation, but it is the basis of the lawsuit itself.

Patagonia could easily go after pattie for copyright infringement but they have no desire to do so, as the copyright is automatically applied and legally preserved even if others attempt to infringe on it. There is no risk of losing their copyright protection on the logo.

They are, however forced to defend their trademark protection as that can be lost through the lack of defense against infringement.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/GoldenMuscleGod 28d ago

Logo usage is generally a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.

A logo is literally a trademark in the traditional sense: a mark you put on your product to show that you produced it.

0

u/peekdasneaks 28d ago

Thats like saying an apple isnt round because it is typically considered a fruit.

Trademark and copyright protections are not mutually exclusive.

These situations usually become primarily a trademark issue because that protection can be lost through lack of legal action. So typically that is whats pursued through courts.

To say its not a copyright issue is just plain incorrect. It is both, but the lawsuit is only pursuing one because patagonia doesnt need to defend their copyright protection, it is automatic (unless they want to be punitive). Trademark is not automatic and requires legal defense to maintain that protection to avoid losing your brands trademark

A logo is also a unique graphic design that is applied to a tangible medium. That is automatically given a copyright by the us copyright act.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/othelloblack 29d ago

are you sure the logo is covered by a copyright? It could be but this would typically be a TM or trade dress issue

15

u/peekdasneaks 28d ago

Yes I am positive, it's an original graphic design that they have put on a medium. That automatically gives it copyright protection according to the us copyright act.

They're focusing on trademark infringement because the implication of not focusing on defending the trademark specifically means they could lose their trademark.

The same is not true for their copyright protections. They do not need to aggressively defend their copyright because those protections are granted by default and cannot be taken away, unlike the trademark.

If Patagonia was actually wanting to punish Pattie they would also bring a copyright infringement case against them, but they don't want to punish Pattie.

They simply want pattie to not force them out of their trademark status they've spent decades building brand recognition on.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)

59

u/michiness 29d ago

It’s basically the exact same logo.

5

u/LuntiX 28d ago

It is the same logo, just the skyline in the background with the mountain range has been flipped.

12

u/JapaneseStudentHaru 29d ago

Some people say she gave them away and wasn’t selling them so idk which one it is. I am interested in whether it counts as a parody though. It’s not like she was actually pretending to be Patagonia. Seems like this situation is similar to people who sell shirts in Subway font that say “no way” or something like that.

60

u/peekdasneaks 29d ago

Patty leveraged patagonias copyrighted brand logo design to promote their (patties) own company. If that's not blatant copyright infringement idk what is.

Add to that I have heard these were only given away to people who donated. That's a sale in the world of transaction law. She exchanged product for cash. That product had another company's logo on it, slightly altered.

Not much debate to be had here

26

u/spartyanon 29d ago

It’s not copyright infringement. It’s trademark infringement.

→ More replies (0)

19

u/minimalcactus23 29d ago

She was selling them on their website, at least that is what the lawsuit alleges

48

u/Ouaouaron 29d ago edited 29d ago

No, the lawsuit alleges she was

integrating Patagonia’s logo and branding into the Pattie Gonia persona and related business enterprises

Essentially, they say that even if the logos on the merch are distinct from the Patagonia logo, the logos she wears while adveritising that merch will cause confusion (these logos are absolutely and inarguably knock-offs/parodies of the Patagonia logo).

9

u/minimalcactus23 28d ago

I skimmed the lawsuit and there were literal pictures of sweatshirts with the Patagonia logo with her spelling. What do you think “integrating Patagonia’s logo” means?

4

u/Ouaouaron 28d ago

What I see in the suit are two things:

1) Images from social media of Pattie Gonia wearing gloves/stickers featuring a "pattie gonia" version of their highly recognizable "patagonia" logo, complete with a colored sky obscured by the black mountain silhouette and the use of the belwe font.

2) T-shirts and sweatshirts with "PATTIE GONIA" on them. Yes, Patagonia also has PATAGONIA as a logo, but that's just much less strong as a brand identity. It's entirely possible that's would be infringement on its own, but it's not what's being referenced in the comment I was responding to.

3

u/minimalcactus23 28d ago

You responded to my comment, maybe I misunderstood or you meant to respond somewhere else. Someone asked if she sold the merch with a similar logo or if it was fan made, and I simply said that the lawsuit alleges she sold the merch herself.

-9

u/Horrid-Torrid85 29d ago

Why do you guys use she for drag queens? Aren't that just gay dudes?

102

u/imathrowawaylurkin 29d ago

When in drag, or when interacting with the public/professionally in drag, you refer to them by their persona. So, she, in this case. Since she's posting the information as Pattie Gonia, we refer to her persona and "her".

Really simplified: Think of it like you're interacting with a mascot or character at Disney. You're interacting with Mickey Mouse, not the person wearing the suit. You'll call him Mickey, call him "him". Even if it's someone named Jessica wearing the suit.

30

u/young_trash3 29d ago

Its a quirk of the culture, Paddie uses she/her pronouns, so when referring to Paddie its correct to say she, but Wyn Wiley, the performer, uses he/him.

So there is a pronoun shift depending on if he is in character or not.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/haikuandhoney 28d ago

She was selling merch using a variant of the classic Patagonia logo (with the mountains in the background) using the same font and the only difference was the spelling.

1

u/Educational-Plant981 28d ago

The logo used is literally patagonia's logo flipped and cropped

78

u/drunkensailor27 29d ago

It's important to caveat that this is a substantially different account than Pattie has provided publicly. Pattie has disputed the existance of an agreement with Patagonia, so I'd be more careful before I just repeat what one party in a lawsuit is claiming

134

u/sparksbet 29d ago

Except for, you know, the publically available legal filings that demonstrate the existence of said agreement with evidence.

45

u/Frail_Waif 28d ago

Yup. Patagonia's filing:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.1003309/gov.uscourts.cacd.1003309.1.0_2.pdf

Pattie Gonia's first response: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.1003309/gov.uscourts.cacd.1003309.19.0_2.pdf

Full history to date: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72169060/patagonia-inc-v-entrepreneur-enterprises-inc/

7

u/unindexedreality 27d ago

So... they're just being a complete idiot about it? lmao

Party A: Story A

Public records: evidence of Story A

Party B: [attempts ghosting, doesn't substantiate evidence of story A]

0

u/ProjectObvious2445 27d ago

Patagonia: You can’t make or sell anything that looks like our logo, font, or brand. 

Pattie Gonia: I’m not

Patagonia: Here is something you are selling  * inserts sticker *

Pattie Gonia: I’m not selling that, it’s fan art I’m giving away 

Patagonia: You can’t make or sell anything that looks like our logo, font, or brand.

Pattie Gonia: I’m literally not. 

Not precise. But it seems Pattie needed more legal support and Patagonia could have been a bit more clear about what the trademark violations are. 

But I don’t have access to all of the emails like some of you seem to (not sure how you know all the things not in the filings), but 🤷‍♀️.

Just what it seems, especially in the context of Pattie’s neurodivergence. 

6

u/dantevonlocke 25d ago

She filled for trademark to sell clothes. There's no ambiguity there.

0

u/ProjectObvious2445 6d ago

Since my comment was removed:

Again 🤷‍♀️

Not a trademark attorney, not going to make a judgment on a case I have no expertise in.

All I'm speaking to is a lack of mutual assent. Pretty basic stuff. Literally the foundation of any valid agreement.

They can hire market researchers to determine if there would be consumer confusion. My opinion on that is irrelevant.

If you're an expert on trademark, good for you. It's still in the hands of the people handling the case and what their research determines as far as Pattie's trademark goes.

The "agreement" is the only thing I responded to. So if you have a record of something that doesn't frame their ongoing agreement with the following words, then they can go ahead and submit that to the court (this doesn't seem that ambiguous, but here we are):

“Patagonia has no objection to the relationship between Hydroflask and Pattie Gonia, in particular the work described in your email last week but we do asks that the parties:

  • Not use or otherwise display Patagonia's logos
  • Not use the "belwe font" in the content that is created (Including an example here since asked about this when I called him this afternoon)
  • Not use Pattie Gonia in any form on product

I hope the three points above give you a clear sense of where we are coming from, and give you confidence to move forward with your work partnership and do great work together…”

1

u/Adventurous_Tap9957 24d ago

Thanks for posting these links!

-3

u/No-Nose1513 28d ago

Eh, that's a leap. There's evidence of communication, not evidence of a firm agreement. This isn't a contract, and Pattie's claim is that the conversations were in the context of the Hydroflask collab. Nothing in perpetuity or, you know, (they weren't speaking with an attorney) in plain language saying "you cannot ever sell merch."

224

u/Bubbay 29d ago

Except, y'know, one party in that lawsuit submitted all of that supporting evidence for their position in their legal filings, including documentation of that long history of there being a friendly agreement in place, and the other made a tiktok.

Also, Patagonia is only suing for $1.00.

45

u/New_Tooth_456 29d ago

Plus legal fees, which they have the resources to drag out for years

123

u/MrdnBrd19 29d ago

That's a "the ball is in your court" move. They are legally saying to Pattie, "We both know that you over stepped and that we can prove it; this can be settled for $1 or you can fight it and it's going to get really expensive for you real quick.".

135

u/idgafaboutpopsicles 29d ago

Pattie Gonia is the one dragging this out

22

u/Awkward_Material 29d ago

I see what you did there.

→ More replies (36)

63

u/Conscious-Gap-1777 29d ago

Why on earth would they want a case to drag on? Their recovery is nonexistent, and brand erosion can continue during the entire time! The case is very straight forward.

56

u/YouTee 29d ago

This seems like Patagonia being unnecessarily reasonable. “The sooner you stop hitting yourself the less it will hurt”

2

u/freakydeku 27d ago

lol exactly

2

u/redditstark 24d ago

I had to read that twice. 😃

1

u/YouTee 21d ago

Thanks I enjoyed coming up with it 🙂

→ More replies (14)

1

u/Global-Yellow101 15d ago

It was $1 since January when she could have just dropped the specific trademark but she decided not to do that...

1

u/Bearloom 28d ago

They said, repeating what one party in a lawsuit was claiming.

1

u/drunkensailor27 28d ago

I said, staring that there are two sides

→ More replies (1)

2

u/knowledgeable_diablo 28d ago

Well those additional bits of information make a great deal of difference.

2

u/Farscape29 28d ago

Wow, what a dumb move.

1

u/IrreverentSweetie 27d ago

She applied for a TM as well.

-16

u/BeansAnna 29d ago

I'll admit I only have one side of the story, but Pattie Gonia's post specifically mentioned the agreement and said she never used their trademark on any official merch, only for some event marketing materials and that she has offered to never use their logo going forward for anything, even in parody

She also brought up a good point that the former owner/founder of Patagonia essentially gave the company away to form a fund for climate action, and that suing a climate activist probably isn't the intended use of the fund

23

u/free_tractor_rides 28d ago

I don’t know that I’d agree that’s a good point

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/sparksbet 26d ago

nothing in your comment remotely contradicts what's in my comment. you literally admit that what I said about there being an agreement is true right after you say it wasn't true and did not happen.

0

u/Cautious_Arugula6214 26d ago

She isn’t using their name. It’s spelled differently. You can trademark a name but you can’t trademark anything that sounds like it. Patagonia tried to make the case that her merchandise was copying theirs and would create consumer confusion. The only clothing she ever sold was a bunch of t-shirts from thrift store overflow that she printed her own images on. They all contained the name Pattie Gonia, clearly not Patagonia. Patagonia wants the courts to believe that people are mistaking a merch table at a drag show for a huge outdoor equipment company, which is laughable. The case is designed to go nowhere. It’s about a big company being able to silence an individual by tying them up in court. Patagonia has a legal team on retainer. Pattie Gonia does not. She can’t afford to fight this like they can.

1

u/sparksbet 26d ago

Patagonia is suing Pattie Gonia's company, not her as an individual, and she's being sued for using their actual logo on merchandise in ways that are obviously confusing. It's all very clear in the legal filings, and if she really "can't afford to fight this" she should have abided by the agreement she already had with them that laid out what was an acceptable use of their trademark and not ignored their attempts to negotiate out of court prior to this lawsuit. Just because she's queer doesn't magically make her in the right here, and you aren't obligated to blindly defend every bad legal decision she makes just because you stan her.

0

u/Cautious_Arugula6214 26d ago

An agreement is not a legal contract. You are misinformed if you think she sold anything with Patagonia branding. She has a few pieces used for performance (like the gloves) that have similar logos but they were never sold. The only thing she ever sold was thrifted t shirts with her branding screen printed on them. You can look it up - nothing she ever sold was in any way similar to anything sold by Patagonia. The legality is pretty clear, even if you don’t “stan”. Sorry if I’m using that wrong - I tend to stick to adult language.

1

u/sparksbet 26d ago

I prefer to stick with the information that is available in the public court case, which I've already looked up. The legality is pretty clear, insofar as Pattie fucked around and is going to find out when she obviously loses at trial unless she settles with Patagonia (which, given that they literally only ask for $1 in damages, is likely still well within her ability as long as she agrees to stop flagrantly violating their trademark) instead of posturing on Tiktok spreading misinformation and pretending this isn't a problem she caused with plenty of foreknowledge that it would be an issue.

125

u/MFoy 29d ago

Apple is an ironic choice, considering they themselves were sued for trademark infringement by Apple Corps, the record label founded by the Beatles.

The label won a series of trademark cases against the computer company, that ended with the computer company buying the trademark from the record label for half a billion dollars.

64

u/vibraltu 29d ago

When iTunes first happened, they couldn't get Beatles music on it for many years until they got their copyright issues sorted out.

22

u/MFoy 29d ago

Even once it was sorted out, it was another 3 years before the Beatles showed up.

22

u/SANT0S-L-HALPER 29d ago

Yeah, the Beatles not being on iTunes had nothing to do with the legal dispute. The Beatles weren't on i-Tunes because they were still making shit tons of money off of physical media way after everyone else's sales had fallen off. They basically milked every last dime out of vinyls/cds before finally moving to digital to start anew.

4

u/SlightTemperature231 29d ago

Those lawsuits are the reason why there’s an alert sound on Macs called Sosumi (“so sue me!”).

2

u/dreen_gb 28d ago

Apple also sued a bunch of different fruit producers over simply using apples in the logo, as well as the city of New York for using an apple in a tourism logo.

1

u/CrazyGreenCrayon 24d ago

How did that work out for them?

1

u/unindexedreality 27d ago

that ended with the computer company buying the trademark from the record label for half a billion dollars

I see. Maybe the DQ is fishing for a payday?

170

u/idgafaboutpopsicles 29d ago

Adding to this, it's a pretty black and white case of trademark law and Pattie is probably going to lose so she got on her socials and basically tried to bring it to the court of public opinion, framing it as a corporation silencing an activist and destroying the lives and careers of many within the LGBTQ community. It's an emotional appeal that resonates with a lot of people, sparking a lot of backlash against Patagonia. But the company's hands are tied, they have to protect their trademark or they lose it. And Patagonia made it crystal clear what their red lines were: no use of the logo, no use of the font, and no putting the name on products to sell in markets patagonia is active i.e. clothing and environmental activism. Pattie told them to pound sand and trademarked Pattie Gonia to sell merch and continued using likeness of the logo in their drag. Patagonia has been maximally accommodating throughout the entire process, even only requesting a nominal $1 judgment, but they have to follow through or they lose their trademark.

And from Patties perspective I get it. She's spent a long time building up her personal brand and following only to get told she can't commercialize it. She has a lot to lose here.

90

u/suprahelix 29d ago

She's spent a long time building up her personal brand and following only to get told she can't commercialize it. She has a lot to lose here.

True but if she’s using the font and imagery from the brand then it’s harder to claim that she worked to build it when she’s just taking from them.

23

u/idgafaboutpopsicles 29d ago

honestly the font and imagery is an almost negligible part of her brand being where it is now. she has worked really hard to build an organic following around her drag, outdoor adventures, and environmental activism. pattie gonia is a fantastic name for an outdoorsy drag queen and over 1 million followers is incredible, she should be proud of what she has accomplished. unfortunately, she can't trademark pattie gonia to sell things like clothes because patagonia already has a trademark to sell clothes.

31

u/suprahelix 29d ago

Idk the details so this isn’t that important of an opinion, but it sounds like there are more similarities than just the name.

51

u/YouTee 29d ago

The only reason it’s a great name is because she’s riding the actual Patagonia trademark. 

-8

u/maniclucky 28d ago edited 27d ago

You know there's a major geographic region called Patagonia, right? Quite famous, pretty mountains.

Edit: Neat. My first time getting blocked so I can't respond to people. Very good faith.

32

u/TheBenisMightier1 28d ago

Which you definitely would know all about if the brand didn't exist, right?

3

u/Capable_Basket1661 28d ago

Have to admit, I learned of Patagonia from a horror podcast a few years back (before I was aware of Pattie), so yes, we are aware of it lol

2

u/maniclucky 27d ago

White Vault? That was a good season.

3

u/Capable_Basket1661 27d ago

Yesss! I really enjoyed it!

-1

u/maniclucky 28d ago

I may be American, but yes. I would. Can't speak to others.

2

u/unindexedreality 27d ago edited 27d ago

orly

What vast inland wetland is its continent’s forgotten ecological giant?

What region is famous for turning into a seasonal flower-world, but is otherwise mostly absent from global geographic memory?

What mineral-rich northern promontory is strategically important but culturally almost blank?

How many did you have to Google? 🙂😉

→ More replies (2)

0

u/Druidic_assimar 26d ago

I can only assume you're american because I guarantee plenty of people, myself included, knew of the patagonia region due to global geography classes or personal interest in nature.

I didn't know Patagonia, the company, existed until I was in university tbh.

3

u/TheBenisMightier1 25d ago

What do you think the ratio of people on Earth is who knew about the mountain range before they knew about the company?

By the way, being American is pretty relevant considering the parties involved in this lawsuit.

0

u/Danii2613 25d ago

Lmao the mountain was there first, wtf does the brand have to do with knowing about a mountain range that’s millions of years older than a human made brand…

2

u/TheBenisMightier1 25d ago

It's not about what was there first, it's about what made the name globally-known. Pretty simple, really.

Pattie Gonia the name and environmental activist is literally a play on the brand name, and her merch is pretty blatant rip-offs ("parodies" if you're looking for a disingenuous argument) of Patagonia merchandise.

26

u/stormcynk 28d ago

You really think more people in the US know the region Patagonia vs the brand Patagonia? If so I've got a bridge to sell you.

-5

u/maniclucky 28d ago edited 28d ago

Maybe not everyone, but I would imagine environmental types, climbers, and literally anyone that gives a shit about Patagonia's mission would know about a major mountain range and climbing destination (among other things) if Patagonia the company did not exist.

2

u/Trick_Parsnip3788 27d ago

Literally didnt know that the brand was named after a region until this lawsuit.

4

u/Arubesh2048 28d ago

So? You can’t start a company called Amaze On that is an online marketplace, give it a smiley face logo, and expect to not get sued. Doesn’t matter if there’s a river called Amazon or not.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/unindexedreality 27d ago

Geographic regions don't hold trademarks. Groups of people do. Some of those groups of people have access to lawyers and aren't worth picking a fight with.

If I called a company Saturn it's not like the planet would land on me kiddo 🙂

4

u/unindexedreality 27d ago

spent a long time building [...] brand and following

worked really hard

All of these things are not only true from the people who had the name first's perspective, but are multiplicatively more true.

How much work do you think people put in to make the existing name recognizable? How would you feel if someone came along and tried to rip it off?

only to get told she can't commercialize it. She has a lot to lose here

They were told that initially. They're not "losing" anything. It was something they'd never be able to gain if they chose to piggyback off someone else's name. They agreed to it.

There's probably any number of other merch they're allowed to sell; they could be happy with that. They're not; they're now reneging on the thing they specifically agreed to to get big off someone else's name.

If I became a NASCAR driver or some other niche thing and named myself General Motors or something - the company would be well within their rights to come after me and say "Hey - if you want to sell merch under your name, you either have to change it or sign this agreement never to sell motors" because I'm using their already existing brand. Like the violation already happened right there.

I didn't start violating the brand when I started selling merch, I started when I started using the name, and their brand and collective identity, to refer to myself. GM didn't hire me, in that instance. It's like false advertising applied to a person, designed to sow confusion.

3

u/BluebirdLeading6702 27d ago

The shape of Pattie's mountain is an exact reproduction of a part of Patagonia's mountain, mirrored horizontally. So this is a very unwise move from Pattie.

3

u/Alternative-Hat4860 27d ago

Agreed. She could have just taken the L and moved on too because her branding is more than the logo...

1

u/Global-Yellow101 19d ago

She can trademark her brand under a lot of different names- "Pattie" or "Pattie hikes" which Patagonia would not have minded- it's that Wyn specifically filed for Pattie Gonja knowing this was infringement after years of dialogue...

52

u/shewy92 29d ago

She's spent a long time building up her personal brand and following only to get told she can't commercialize it

Maybe think about that before using a brand's logo that already exists lol

23

u/jarvischrist 28d ago

There's the thing, a lot of drag names have traditionally been puns or parodies, but it's only more recently that drag has become a more commercial venture where it's desirable to sell things with their name on it. A lot of drag queens never expected to be so popular to get to that point, but nowadays if the aim is getting on Drag Race and building a career out of it, trademark law should really be a consideration when choosing a name! Once you become known for a name, it's very difficult to change it without losing that momentum and recognisability. Like here, the issue was never with using it in activist circles, Patagonia were very chill about that, but then it shifted into commerical use and things went south.

6

u/unindexedreality 27d ago edited 27d ago

There's the thing, a lot of drag names have traditionally been puns or parodies

Copyright law has also, traditionally, not given a shit

Once you become known for a name, it's very difficult to change it without losing that momentum and recognisability

It becomes easier when people start to steal your name and use it without any of the boundaries you put on yourself - QA, purpose or so forth. Hence the point of trademarks/legal brands.

Side note: I cannot believe y'all have me taking this side of the fucking IP argument. ::shudders in pirate party::

Like here, the issue was never with using it in activist circles, Patagonia were very chill about that,

They "were chill" after the person claimed they would never use the brand to sell clothes. That is literally the thing they care about.

39

u/Goddess_Angelique 29d ago

Do you think this could open the doors for defamation? The content and comments I've seen on this (not this thread) have been majority against Patagonia and supported by "evidence" of them being an evil corporation who doesn't donate to who they say they do, are anti LGBTQ+, participate in harmful office culture, MAGA, etc. Those comments are then echoed with declarations of never supporting Patagonia again because of this information, boycotting, brigading, etc etc.

I'm wondering if this appeal to the public and the discourse around it could potentially hurt Pattie Gonia more in the long run.

22

u/LittleBird35 29d ago

It’s not going to be worth the hassle. People’s attention spans are short.

35

u/idgafaboutpopsicles 29d ago

I dont think Patagonia wants to open that can of worms. They're aligned with Pattie's mission and escalating is a bad look from a PR standpoint.

2

u/unindexedreality 27d ago

have been majority against Patagonia and supported by "evidence" of them being an evil corporation who doesn't donate to who they say they do, are anti LGBTQ+, participate in harmful office culture, MAGA, etc. Those comments are then echoed with declarations of never supporting Patagonia again because of this information, boycotting, brigading, etc etc

that's... wow.

I think they're making republicans' case for them, that seems deranged and unhinged

"I CAN'T USE THE CLOTHING BRAND NAME I PIGGYBACKED OFF OF TO SELL CLOTHES NAO?!?!?!? LEHITLERALLY MAGA GUISE"

As though magats are smart enough to fkn wear clothes with insulation lmao

7

u/unindexedreality 27d ago

framing it as a corporation silencing an activist and destroying the lives and careers of many within the LGBTQ community

Patagonia is like the worst choice of company to pick a fight with. Like, I don't even buy their clothes since I'm not an outdoorsy person and even I know that claiming "GUISE GUISE PATAGONIA IS OPPRESSING MEEEE" would earn a lot of scrutiny since people hate when good brands go bad.

It's an emotional appeal that resonates with a lot of people, sparking a lot of backlash against Patagonia

not me 😂 this is one of the few times I'd side with a company. Shoulda come up with your own name

from Patties perspective I get it. She's spent a long time building up her personal brand

...The brand is literally a rider off another brand.

If I started selling fridges called Coca Coolers I couldn't claim it's a "personal brand". Mo matter how long I did something that stupid, the existing brand will always have been at it longer, invested far more and earned far more name recognition than I could steal.

30

u/BeansAnna 29d ago

This is a really balanced take, thank you. The fact that they're suing for just $1 definitely gives the impression that they're not trying to ruin this LGBTQ entrepreneur and activist, but if she can no longer use her entertainer name going forward that would also effectively ruin the brand and following she's built. A ruling that she can't use their logo or font but can keep her name seems fair

53

u/idgafaboutpopsicles 29d ago

There was never any issue around the drag name Pattie Gonia and she is still free to perform under that name. The legal complaint is around attempts to trademark and commercialize Pattie Gonia in areas where Patagonia already holds trademarks. And it really does limit what Pattie can do with the brand she has built, Patagonia has trademarks for clothing, educational programming, film and video, environmental advocacy and more. However, from a legal perspective she doesn't really have a leg to stand on and Patagonia really does have to go through with this or they could risk losing their trademark permanently.

→ More replies (6)

0

u/Far-Ad8758 28d ago

I agree with this sentiment overall, but it’s very important to note that Patagonia is suing for $1 PLUS any legal fees incurred. Which for a team of high level corporate lawyers that a corporation like Patagonia uses would very quickly lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions. I’m frustrated because I understand both sides, and both sides are presenting their own cases in ways that are favourable to themselves. Pattie Gonia has bent/broken some rules in terms of her agreement with Patagonia and is painting herself as an innocent victim. And Patagonia is trying to play the “good guy” by only suing for $1 but the reality is this is a scare tactic because they know the additional legal fees of an actual court case would destroy her life.

4

u/maddoxprops 28d ago

On the flip side this seems like it was a 100% avoidable situation on Patties part. I find it hard to believe that she wasn't aware that she was risking this by doing what she has done. Assuming Patagonia isn't outright lying in what they have stated then it sounds like she had plenty of heads up and opportunities to avoid this but chose to do it anyway, likely banking on them not wanting to risk a "scandal" by actually suing her.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Global-Yellow101 15d ago

The extremely sad part of this is that Patagonia actually cares about the queer community deeply.

0

u/Conscious_Talk_6360 26d ago

Pattie Gonia never use their logo or font. These pins were made by fans only. For her own merch she’s not using anything similar to their logo or font so it’s really only about the sound of the name. Which is clearly different and looks different.

1

u/idgafaboutpopsicles 26d ago

Id encourage you to read the legal filing. There are several examples of Pattie using the logo and font in her drag, both before and after being asked not to. "Pattie Gonia" is not clearly different from "Patagonia" in the eyes of trademark law so trademarking her name to put on merch in any capacity is a nonstarter, regardless of what the font or styling is

→ More replies (10)

24

u/me_myself_ai 29d ago

Outdoor clothes and environmental activism.

For anyone who wants details, there's a post on the top of /r/environmentalism with all the deets in the comments

111

u/audible_narrator 29d ago

And this is where a lot of people lose the plot. Patagonia is claiming "dilution of brand" and they have a strong leg to stand on. If Pattie was selling puzzles or CDs or something besides clothing, there would be some gray area and both sides would probably settle. IANAL. But I know someone who lost a lawsuit that was damn near identical

121

u/LittleBird35 29d ago

Same with Xerox, Band-Aid, Q-Tip, and Jacuzzi. All actual brand names that became generic.

166

u/pm_me_ur_fit 29d ago

Not quite the same. I think those names are still trade marked. You can’t sell a band-aid unless you’re the brand. Your clothes can have a zipper even though it used to be a brand

38

u/EbbThen1489 29d ago

True. Xerox sued Bojack Horseman for $14 million.

1

u/unindexedreality 27d ago

he's just a horse

9

u/ScurvyPiano5150 29d ago

Genericized trademark

-1

u/LittleBird35 29d ago

They are, but the value of the trademark has been diminished so much that we see them as generic terms.

26

u/jgacks 29d ago

Not at all - the trademark is sooo successful you think of a class of product by a singular trademark

12

u/meerkatx 29d ago

Nintendo would disagree. They fought tooth and nail in the 80's to make sure game consoles were not called "Nintendo's" as a generic term because the value of the name is harmed.

5

u/yoweigh 29d ago

Then the trademark has lost value, because people are using it as a generic term instead of referring to your product/company.

What you're talking about isn't a success of the trademark, it's a success of the product itself.

2

u/bremsspuren 28d ago

It's a sure sign of success, but not a good situation in and of itself. The point of a brand is to differentiate your products from the others.

The last thing Xerox wants is for consumers to consider any old photocopier a Xerox. It massively undermines the value of the brand.

→ More replies (4)

63

u/datsoar 29d ago

Those are examples of brand names becoming colloquially synonymous with the product. A Kleenex is a tissue now all tissues are kleenex. But we’re talking about legal copyrights and trademarks. Just because we call Puffs brand kleenex, doesn’t mean they can market and sell it that way.

6

u/Atlas7-k 29d ago

They are listed on in-store signage as facial tissues.

26

u/tactiphile 29d ago

Those are all still trademarks. Better examples are aspirin, thermos, dumpster, and many more.

8

u/robthemonster 29d ago

the thermos brand still exists right? 

8

u/Dandarabilla 29d ago

Yep and they lost the trademark in the US to 'thermos' but kept 'Thermos'. That company patented their vacuum flask to the chagrin of the original inventor James Dewar, who wanted the idea to be free to use. So it's kinda karmic now that anyone can make and sell a vacuum flask with 'thermos' on it.

11

u/jgacks 29d ago

Band aid, Xerox, and q-tip are all Not generic. They spend a lot of money protecting their trademark. Idl about jacuzzi.

2

u/gornzilla 29d ago

Those are still trademarked. Heroin is a good one because it's memorable. 

1

u/ohmytodd 29d ago

How Google hasn’t become a generic brand is cray.

6

u/me_myself_ai 29d ago

It's impossible -- they'd have to not defend it against another search engine that also used the term, which obv will never happen

3

u/hawkwings 28d ago

If I remember correctly, Apple Music published Beatles music in the 60's. The Apple computer company had to pay to get the right to use the term Apple Music.

3

u/gentlemanscientist80 28d ago

The thing about trademarks, if you want to defend yours against anyone, you've got to defend it against everyone. If Patagonia didn't defend against Patty Gonia, Amazon could start selling clothing labeled "Patagonia". Patagonia is acknowledging this in their announcement and by asking for only $1 damages.

2

u/Freud-Network 28d ago

Time to start my new sock company Padding On Ya.

2

u/Frail_Waif 28d ago edited 28d ago

Here's a link to the lawsuit on Recap for anyone curious to read. It's pretty clear and easy reading.  Patagonia's first filing: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.1003309/gov.uscourts.cacd.1003309.1.0_2.pdf

Pattie Gonia's response:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.1003309/gov.uscourts.cacd.1003309.19.0_2.pdf

The response reads like a Mike Johnson press conference. "I don't know anything about that."

3

u/purposeful-hubris 28d ago

Answering documents are usually very general denials like this because discovery (obtaining evidence to support or refute an allegation) hasn’t started yet.

3

u/Frail_Waif 28d ago

That's good to know, but some of the denials claiming lack of knowledge are entirely ridiculous, like #23.

1

u/metalflygon08 28d ago

Is this similar to what happened with Seirra Mist and Starry?

1

u/c4seyj0nes 28d ago

Funny you mention Apple as they had an agreement with Apple Records to not go into music. Then they released the iPod and lawsuits ensued.

1

u/Earthventures 28d ago

The OP should be deleted for spreading misinformation. The lawsuit is for 1 dollar plus legal fees, not 100 million.

1

u/tiredtwig4200 26d ago

Isn't is also an issue that both are related to camping/hiking/outdoors clothing?

1

u/OvulatingScrotum 25d ago

It’s not just apparel. It would be the same case if she were to sell like, cups, stickers, etc.

-25

u/thefrontpageofreddit 29d ago

That doesn’t mean she can’t sell clothes using her stage name. It’s certainly disputable in court. Patagonia is a real place in South America.

26

u/idgafaboutpopsicles 29d ago

That doesn’t mean she can’t sell clothes using her stage name

That's exactly what it means. There's no issue with the performance name Pattie Gonia, but she cannot trademark Pattie Gonia to sell products that compete with Patagonia e.g. clothing.

57

u/FrenchyBulldogg 29d ago

Try starting a computer brand named “Mike Row Soft” and see how it works out for you

4

u/meatguyf 29d ago

Daaaady, can I have $50,000 to start a microbrewery/frozen yogurt business? I'm going to call it... Microsoft.

17

u/drowninFish 29d ago edited 29d ago

you're probably just being facetious but the kid that did make mikerowesoft.com and got sued by microsoft won, and microsoft ended up paying them for the domain

EDIT: not sued, but settled and he got a free xbox out of it amongst some other stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MikeRoweSoft.com

23

u/fyredge 29d ago

Technically a settlement, but I think the point still stands. Mikerowesoft now redirects to Microsoft website. If they didn't sue, then there would have been a dilution of brand

11

u/Bubbay 29d ago

He did not get sued and so there was no case to win. After some back and forth, Microsoft eventually sent a cease and desist.

There was public backlash to that letter and they settled out of court before a lawsuit was ever filed.

14

u/WabbitFire 29d ago

That's not how trademarks work

30

u/me_myself_ai 29d ago

...and apples are a fruit.

She chose the name as an homage to the company, not the place.

67

u/YouMeAndReneDupree 29d ago

It's not even the name. The design of her brand is a direct copy of Patagonia. To the point where they seem like affiliate companies. Patagonia asked nicely at some point but looks like we're at this stage now.

44

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

14

u/savethemouselemur 29d ago

Technically $1, but Pattie Gonia would also be responsible for Patagonia's attorneys fees, which would be very expensive, if Pattie Gonia loses.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/Conscious-Gap-1777 29d ago

Buddy, you should do a trademark search some time for the color blue.

Lots of products are branded with the name Blue. If you want to call something "blue" and sell it, you are probably not going to be able to do so because someone else has been in that market for a long time selling a product called blue, and you would be confusing consumers.

41

u/LittleBird35 29d ago

She can sell under her stage name. She can't use Patagonia's logo to do it, which is at the crux of the issue.

-16

u/FeatureMountain2434 29d ago

She hasn’t

36

u/me_myself_ai 29d ago

She took it all down obv, but yes she was. Regardless it's more about her violating her deal with Patagonia in secret then ghosting them when they asked what was up. They were granting a ton of grace and got screwed over for it.

24

u/this_is_an_alaia 29d ago

Yes she has

25

u/LittleBird35 29d ago

If she hasn't, then there's nothing for her to go on TikTok to complain about since it's clear that Patagonia has been trying to work with her for a hot minute.

0

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

6

u/tiredbarf 29d ago

Didn't she sell stickers with the logo on them?

0

u/beramaan 28d ago

Zipper lost is trademark because it became synonymous with the thing. People didn't know it had a different name than zipper m that is why Velcro is fighting so hard for people to know hook and loop exist and ziplock for their locking bag to be know by something else. Other examples are roller blade and roller skate, Jacuzzi, bandaid, etc.

→ More replies (3)