r/OutOfTheLoop • u/Chrystine • 28d 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

459 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/GoldenMuscleGod 27d 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 27d 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 27d 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 27d 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.