June 9, 2026

Patagonia vs. Pattie Gonia: What a Drag

By Emily Poler

It’s June, so happy Pride! I certainly hope this month’s events will be full of fun for everyone who honors and rejoices in the celebrations, although I worry about one drag superstar who is currently embroiled in a trademark infringement case. It’s blowing up on social media at the moment and, unfortunately, I don’t think it is going to end well for her.

Pattie Gonia is an activist, performer and hiking enthusiast who uses her Instagram and TikTok to promote LGBTQ+ and environmental causes to almost three million followers. She’s also the defendant in a lawsuit brought by — you guessed it — outdoor apparel brand Patagonia, which accuses her of appropriating its trademark.

The “Pattie Gonia” persona was created by Wyn Wiley in 2018, who says the name was inspired by the region in South America, and not a parody of the clothing company. During her initial rise to fame she accomplished feats like hiking the California coast in high heels, with her various adventures raising millions for environmental nonprofits. Patagonia was apparently aware of and cool with her name in connection with such advocacy. That changed in early 2022, when the company learned Pattie Gonia was planning fundraising partnerships with Hydro Flask and The North Face — two of Patagonia’s competitors. The parties met and, according to Patagonia, came up with an agreement that, from Patagonia’s point of view, provided that Pattie Gonia would not use Patagonia’s logos, fonts, or designs that mimic Patagonia’s in her visual materials or use “Pattie Gonia” in any form on any product. These understandings were subsequently memorialized in emails. According to Patagonia, the idea here was to both protect Patagonia’s brand and “leave some space for Pattie Gonia’s fundraising in support of environmental causes.” 

Fast forward a few years and we have this: 

And, perhaps more egregiously (look at the logo on the gloves):

What’s more, in September 2025 Pattie Gonia sought to register a trademark for “Pattie Gonia” for drag shows and t-shirts, as well as promotion of goods and services on social media.  

Unsurprisingly, Patagonia sued, asserting claims for, among other things, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution. The company has made clear in its statements that it recognizes both parties share the same devotion to environmentalism, going on to say, “we wish this lawsuit had not been necessary, and we want to acknowledge any hurt it has caused, especially in the LGBTQ+ community.” The company is only seeking to recover $1 from Pattie Gonia, instead asking her to “withdraw all trademark applications,” “stop using our logos” and “stop selling and promoting apparel and other products as Pattie Gonia.”

Pattie Gonia, through her lawyers, answered the complaint by denying the allegations and asking for a trial. The dispute has flown pretty much under the radar since the suit was filed in January, but last month she took her case to social media, insisting “no deal” and inspiring her upset followers to demand Patagonia drop the suit. She also responded through an open letter to Patagonia’s CEO, Board of Directors and others, concluding with a plea to “make peace and get back to our common love of the planet including our namesake region in South America named Patagonia.” She also denied ever using the Patagonia brand, logo or font on her merch, claiming “the lawsuit cherry-picks a few examples of playful parody and fan art and tries to spin those into some kind of vast use of their logo.”

Pattie Gonia says she’s willing to drop her trademark registration filing and “never parody their logo ever again,” but she’s standing firm on Patagonia’s third demand — that she stop selling Pattie Gonia branded product — saying it would eliminate “the partnership work with other brands that I’ve done for years to pay for education, advocacy and activism that me and my team do. If I can’t do partnerships as Pattie Gonia, it breaks the whole ecosystem of advocacy and community engagement.” 

As much as my heart is very much with Pattie Gonia, I have a couple of observations about this lawsuit, some of which may give her and her followers some hope, but ultimately point to a bad end for the performer:

  1. For those in the back (and everyone else), if you have an agreement, get it in writing. The emails Patagonia is relying on may be enough here, but it would definitely have been better to create a written document. In fact, while Patagonia repeatedly says it had an agreement with Pattie Gonia delineating what each of them could and could not do, Patagonia itself doesn’t seem to think that there’s anything enforceable here because, notably, it doesn’t bring a breach of contract claim; 
  2. There’s a decent argument that Pattie Gonia’s merch without anything resembling Patagonia’s very recognizable logo isn’t infringing; 
  3. WIth that said, an alternative spelling that is pronounced the same or similarly to an existing mark can be the basis for trademark infringement;
  4. Also, to the extent that consumers think that Pattie Gonia is somehow affiliated with or endorsed by Patagonia, that’s a basis for liability;
  5. The fact that both Patagonia and Pattie Gonia are based on an actual place doesn’t change the analysis because it’s pretty safe to say that many consumers associate the word with the company; 
  6. To the extent there’s a defense of parody to claims of trademark infringement, it could theoretically apply to drag shows, but it’s not going to apply to Pattie Gonia’s sale of t-shirts and other merch; and
  7. Regardless of whether Pattie Gonia is promoting causes Patagonia supports, Patagonia has to enforce its trademark rights or else it risks losing them.  

At the heart of Patagonia’s suit is, of course, the question of whether “Pattie Gonia” is likely to cause confusion or dilute Patagonia’s brand by causing consumers to think Patagonia has sponsored or approved any of Pattie Gonia’s products. And looking at the pictures above, it seems pretty likely.