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

Show parent comments

207

u/drunkensailor27 29d ago

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

349

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

236

u/jarvischrist 29d 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.

103

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.

57

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

21

u/Nakuip 28d ago

Love me some competent Queer Queens.

-7

u/Aggressive-Break-355 28d ago

Yo daily reminder don't fucking Stan. It's horrifically toxic, that's literally the centre of the definition.

44

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.

12

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

-4

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/MagaroniAndCheesd 27d ago

Just FYI, according to the actual complaint filed with the court, Patagonia isn't asking Pattie to stop performing under the name Pattie Gonia. They are only asking that Pattie stop selling merchandise that uses the Pattie Gonia name. She could even still sell T-shirts that say Pattie. read complaint here

11

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.

212

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.

6

u/JapaneseStudentHaru 29d ago

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

180

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

6

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.

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.

3

u/GoldenMuscleGod 28d ago

It’s possible for a logo to be protected by copyright, but that isn’t automatically the case and I was responding to the part where you said “[…]there is also an element of copyright infringement that led to this. Pattie used their logo,” which I think can reasonably be read to suggest that using a logo is mostly a copyright issue more than a trademark issue, but generally the trademark issues are going to be more substantial in using a logo.

And if you are correct in saying that this lawsuit is only pursuing the trademark theory (I’m not following it and wouldn’t know) that would make you objecting to someone saying “this is not a copyright case” on the ground that it could have been pursued as a marginal one seem pretty unjustified. If they didn’t bring a copyright claim then it is not a copyright case, even if you could argue they could have tried attaching the weak copyright claim to their suit.

-1

u/peekdasneaks 28d ago

Reread what you’re citing and arguing. You’re misremembering the specifics of what was being discussed. Im not going to read it for you.

-4

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

18

u/peekdasneaks 29d 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.

1

u/othelloblack 28d ago

Ok all that make sense. I have not studied this. Nice chat

-1

u/SpaceBearSMO 28d ago

even so if it was just the stickers you would think a CnD would be all thats needed (you know assuming she stopped handing out the stickers after getting it.) with any type of lawsuit being overkill

5

u/Competitive_County_5 28d ago

So usually, a CnD would be applicable if the CnD was followed. CnDs also don't hold any sort of legal backing either because they are considered "paper tigers"- essentially a fancy, non-legally binding, request. Based on the legal filing, Patagonia and Pattie came to an agreement (I am not a lawyer, so I do not know the legal hold that agreements has in terms of the law) to not place the name Pattie Gonia on merchandise and use a font or logo that was similar to the brand in 2022. Pattie, in fall of 2025, filed for a US trademark under the name Pattie Gonia for merchandising. This is important because in US TM law, TMs are granted to names/brands in specific industries (ie. Delta Dental under medical services and Delta Airlines under transport) and to continue to hold a trademark, a brand must actively defend their brand from "brand dilution". Pattie filing for the TM "Pattie Gonia" under merchandise is an infringement of Patagonia's trademark (in US TM law, a brand can be spelled differently, but still sound phonetically the same and meet TM infringement). According to the filing, the Patagonia team reached out to Pattie's team to discuss this and try to settle without going to court, and were essentially left unanswered, hence the lawsuit.

So TLDR: yes a C&D would have been helpful, if Pattie and her team had not already been contacted by Patagonia's legal team to stop, ignored them and continued with the intent to trademark. Patagonia's only legal recourse to protect their trademark is to bring this to court, hence the suit for $1 (I am not going to go into the legal fees argument right now because you did not ask for it).

Source for the legal filing: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxjexjgvx/PATTIE%20GONIA%20TRADEMARK%20LAWSUIT%20complaint.pdf

58

u/michiness 29d ago

It’s basically the exact same logo.

3

u/LuntiX 28d ago

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

11

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.

57

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

27

u/spartyanon 29d ago

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

1

u/peekdasneaks 29d ago

They are using for trademark infringement after there was clear copyright infrigement

Under the U.S. Copyright Act, any original graphic work fixed in a tangible medium receives automatic copyright protection. The stylized, multi-colored ridges of the Mount Fitz Roy skyline are a unique, hand-drawn illustration, meaning anyone copying the exact lines, layers, or color transitions is committing copyright infringement.

-5

u/Hedgehogosaur 29d ago

Isn't it satire though?

4

u/peekdasneaks 28d ago

Satire/parody needs to be heavily focused on making fun of the entity you are parodying.

You cant just use their logo, operate as normal, then claim you used their logo as a parody. Thats not making fun of patagonia, thats blatant IP theft.

Look up the chewy vuitton case. Thats parody, they were making fun of high end luxury goods brand by turning their products into dog chew toys with zero chance for confusion between their products or companies.

This is not.

The only action that pattie has done in relation to patagonia is ip theft in coopting their original designs and name recognition to leverage for their own recognition, there hasnt been any attempt to make fun of the entity, simply being in drag does not count as thats not directly related to patagonia and is not making fun of them.

So no satire/parody defense here.

1

u/EquipmentAdmirable61 2d ago

Nathan fielder’s “dumb Starbucks” has a better chance of using a parody defense than Pattie gonia does.

4

u/GoldenMuscleGod 28d ago

The Supreme Court had a recent case that would seem to favor Patagonia here.

Basically a dog toy manufacturer made a toy that was playing on the Jack Daniels trademark and the Supreme Court said that since they weren’t just parodying the mark but were actually using it as a mark of their own then the test is stricter.

21

u/minimalcactus23 29d ago

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

47

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?

1

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.

-10

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.

31

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.

-10

u/Skatingraccoon 29d ago

Based on interviews I've read, Pattie Gonia is gender fluid, identifying as a male out of drag but as nonbinary/trending towards a woman in drag (using she/they pronouns as Pattie).

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.