A dispute between a company known for environmental activism and an environmental activist… now that’s confusing. Patagonia, the outdoor apparel brand, filed a federal trademark complaint against Wyn Wiley, the drag queen and climate activist better known as Pattie Gonia. The lawsuit was launched by Patagonia in response to Pattie Gonia’s filing of a US trademark application for the wordmark PATTIE GONIA in association with goods and services that overlap with those covered by the company’s registered trademark portfolio, including PATAGONIA. Specifically, Patagonia is claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution of its marks.
For trademark practitioners, brand owners, and creators alike, the dispute offers a lens into how enforcement strategy, cultural context, and public perception collide, and how the risk of enforcing your trademark rights in court may affect your brand reputation in the court of public opinion.
Litigation and brand reputation
Although Patagonia filed its lawsuit in January 2026, it was not until May that the public began voicing their opinion on the matter. The public involvement stemmed largely from Pattie Gonia’s public statement on the lawsuit, in which she asserted that “this is not a brand conflict … this is a corporation trying to erase an activist.” Despite this matter being one of trademark law and brand protection, the public perceived it as an attack on environmental activism and the LGBTQ+ community. The timing of this statement just before Pride Month amplified the backlash Patagonia faced.
In response, Patagonia stated in a press release that “protecting the Patagonia trademark is part of protecting the ability of this company to continue doing that work in the future.” The company also referenced an earlier statement on the matter, reinforcing its position that it wanted “Pattie to have a long and successful career and make progress on issues that matter—but in a way that respects Patagonia’s intellectual property and ability to use our brand to sell products and advocate for the environment.”
Trademark law and the drag community
As it stands, trademark law may not seamlessly fit with drag community culture. Drag has a long tradition of parodying, referencing, and riffing on well-known names as a way for performers to create their own identity and persona. For example, drag performers Gottmik, Jan Sport, and Brita Filter drew inspiration from the famous California Milk Processor Board’s ‘Got Milk’ ad, the American backpack brand, and the German water filter manufacturer, respectively.
Wiley adopted the Pattie Gonia persona in October 2018, building a platform that combined drag performance with environmentalism and LGBTQ+ visibility. For years she regularly created social media content, ran advocacy events and fundraisers, and performed under the Pattie Gonia alias. It was not until Pattie Gonia expanded into commercial activities, including selling merchandise, operating an e-commerce site, touring, securing sponsorships, and ultimately filing a trademark application seeking exclusive commercial rights, that the persona acquired the hallmarks of a trademarked brand.
This raises the question: can drag performers continue to adopt playful names referencing other brands?
In US trademark law, pure expressive parodic use of trademarks generally receives significant First Amendment protection. However, when the expressive persona is commercialized and used as a source identifier for goods or services—that is, when the name is used as a trademark itself—is when issues of infringement and confusion can arise.
Ultimately, this fine line is difficult to draw. Treating all drag names as inherently non-commercial ignores the economic realities of modern performance arts, such as drag. On the other hand, treating them as ordinary trademarks ignores a cultural practice whose foundation is built on reference and homage as a form of creative expression and identity.
No choice but to enforce?
Under trademark law, a trademark owner must enforce their rights, failing which they can weaken, or completely lose, their rights in the mark altogether. Trademarks serve a vital consumer protection function by allowing consumers to distinguish the source of the goods and services they purchase. Where those lines of distinction between brands blur… so does the strength of the trademark.
Before Patagonia took to the courts, Patagonia and Pattie Gonia had reached an agreement where both parties could continue to work in a way that would not interfere with the company’s trademarks. Patagonia felt Pattie Gonia had not honoured the terms of that agreement and thus felt compelled to file the lawsuit.
However, as Patagonia seeks only nominal damages of one dollar, its claim does not appear to be aimed at restricting Pattie Gonia’s environmental or LGBTQ+ advocacy. Rather, Patagonia’s primary objective appears to be injunctive relief. That is, stopping the use of a brand that it considers confusingly similar to its own and blocking registration of the PATTIE GONIA trademark application.
Protecting your trademark without losing your brand
While we wait for a decision from the courts, the ongoing dispute nevertheless provides relevant takeaways for both trademark owners and performers alike:
- Trademark owners, like Patagonia, should not fear the cost of enforcing their trademark rights. The court of public opinion often operates with different rules of evidence, a partial picture of the facts, and an incomplete understanding of legal frameworks. In such circumstances, it is important for brand owners to engage with the public in a clear, timely, and genuine manner.
- Performers seeking to commercialize their personas, like Pattie Gonia, should conduct trademark searches before filing applications to ensure they do not risk infringing upon existing trademark registrations.
Whether you are a trademark owner or a performer, trademarks serve an important role for consumers to distinguish the source of their goods and services. Understanding your rights as a trademark owner and your rights to enter into the commercial space will help to avoid being dragged into trademark disputes.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
