Patagonia Inc., the outdoor apparel brand known for its pro-environment stance, is embroiled in a trademark dispute with drag queen and climate activist Pattie Gonia in what could become a PR nightmare.
The company says Entrepreneur Enterprises Inc., doing business as Pattie Gonia Productions, infringed its trademarks through merchandise branding in violation of a 2022 agreement. Its lawsuit seeks only $1 in damages, as the company said the case isn’t about money, but rather the need to “protect our business and employees.”
But the maneuver may backfire.
Pattie Gonia, who rose to fame from a viral video of her hiking in heels, responded with a statement on TikTok that has garnered over 5 million views and generated a social media firestorm.
“This is not a brand conflict. This is a corporation trying to erase an activist,” said the drag queen whose platform for climate and LGBTQ+ activism boasts millions of followers. “This is how corporations bully individuals.”
Patagonia stressed that the company isn’t fighting over money or politics.
“This matter is not about seeking financial gain, nor is it about challenging anyone’s identity or right to advocacy, protest, or creative expression. The last thing we wanted was a legal fight with someone who shares our values, but we must protect our business and employees,” it said in an emailed statement.
Ventura, Calif.-based Patagonia now finds itself in a difficult position: companies that follow best practices to protect their intellectual property also risk alienating customers if they’re perceived as the aggressor. And with the prevalence of social media, these conflicts can snowball into disaster for the brand’s public image.
If Pattie Gonia can get enough funds to fight this, the suit will “rake the brand over the coals on reputation,” Mark Mizrahi of Saul Ewing said.
Alesha Dominique of Norton Rose Fulbright said these types of disputes were less public earlier in her career.
“With the explosion of social media and influencer culture,” she said, “you immediately have this risk of any dispute being litigated in the court of public opinion.”
Double-Edged Sword
That risk is already materializing for Patagonia, whose lawsuit isn’t happening in a cultural vacuum.
“The eroding of supports for LGBTQ rights over the last few years in the country makes this a more remarkable case than a regular trademark dispute,” said Matthew Hintz of Lowenstein Sandler. “We have the social and political aspects that go beyond just a potential legal claim.”
Even so, the lawsuit remains important for the company’s future: “Patagonia has a responsibility to protect the company that generations of employees have helped build,” its emailed statement said. “Not because a name matters more than people, but because that name carries trust, purpose, and decades of work connected to environmental activism, product, storytelling and community impact. Protecting the Patagonia trademark is part of protecting the ability of this company to continue doing that work in the future.”
If the company doesn’t act, “they can’t stop the influencer from doing just about anything,” Mizrahi said.
It’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” situation, he said.
The lawsuit stems from an agreement in which Pattie Gonia and her business partner said they wouldn’t reference Patagonia’s logo or brand, according to an email included with the complaint.
The deal went sour last year when Pattie Gonia filed an application with the US Patent and Trademark Office for exclusive rights to use her drag name in connection with various merchandise.
Companies usually tolerate parody names like those often adopted by drag queens for performance purposes.
But “there is a line between expressive use and commercial product use,” Mizrahi said. “The more registrations that are on the register, the more diluted the mark becomes, even in the eyes of the examiners.”
A trademark owner that fails to enforce its rights in a timely manner also may lose them, he said.
Expressive Use
The issues echo those in the US Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, which held that the parodic nature of a dog toy based on the whiskey brand’s signature bottle didn’t automatically shield it from trademark liability. The justices also held that the Rogers test—which allows trademark use in some expressive works—didn’t apply because VIP Products used the copied features to designate the products as its own.
That case is on appeal again before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after the district court on remand found dilution but not infringement.
Pattie Gonia took any expressive use protection under the Rogers test off the table when she filed her own trademark application, said Lisa Ramsey, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law.
“Typically, parody has to comment on the trademark owner,” she said. In Pattie Gonia’s case, “if this is a parody, what exactly is the parody? Is it just the words? Because the words by themselves don’t really comment on the company,” she said.
But Pattie Gonia preserved her First Amendment defense to the infringement claim—a constitutional question the justices left unanswered, Ramsey said.
That means “the court will either have to rule in her favor on another ground or confront the question of whether trademark dilution law is consistent with the First Amendment,” she said.
‘More Art Than Science’
The lawsuit illustrates the overlap between legal strategy and brand strategy in the social media era, Dominique said.
Brand owners now must weigh both reputational risks and legal concerns, she said. “It’s more art than science.”
Dominique also stressed the importance of understanding the potential trademark risks of becoming a social media influencer.
Indeed, online comments in response to the Patagonia suit are split: some criticize Pattie Gonia for targeting a company that shares her sustainability values, while Patagonia’s Instagram account is flooded with comments demanding the company drop the suit.
“If you’re ever going to make a foray into an influencer name-parodying a famous brand, see an attorney early,” Mizrahi said.