AfriPulse
Patagonia is a world-famous outdoor apparel brand. Pattie Gonia is a prolific drag-artist-cum-climate-activist. Neither has an original name.
And yet it is the name they have(-ish) in common that is at the crux of a trademark lawsuit that has, over the weekend, become a social media sensation.
Patagonia is presumably named after the mountainous region that spreads across Argentina and Chile in South America. Pattie Gonia, Wyn Wiley out of drag, who uses she/they pronouns in drag, has gained recognition online for her niche blend of drag and climate activism since 2018. She’s hosted a Ted Talk on climate change and queer rights, and is the cofounder of The Oath, a nonprofit organization for diversity, equity, and inclusion in environmental causes. Her name, in true drag style, is a play on Patagonia, the label, as she’s said in interviews early on in her career.
After coexisting seemingly peacefully for years, on January 21, Patagonia posted a statement on its website and filed a lawsuit against Pattie Gonia and her company, Entrepreneur Enterprises Inc, which externally operates as Pattie Gonia Productions, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition. That this debacle is making headlines now, nearly five months later, is the result of Pattie Gonia taking to Instagram last week to air out her grievances with the suit—just in time for the beginning of LGBTQ+ Pride Month—accusing the company of trying to “erase” her and her activism.
Patagonia is seeking $1 in damages, plus the cost of its legal fees, a sum that could presumably be hefty, with the claim that the company believed it had reached an agreement with Pattie Gonia in 2022 that identified a middle ground that could allow the performer to continue her advocacy work without infringing on Patagonia’s existing trademark. According to Patagonia’s complaint, in 2022, Pattie Gonia and Patagonia were in touch as the former was developing a collaboration with Hydroflask. Patagonia claimed that Pattie Gonia agreed to “refrain from selling Pattie Gonia–branded products or using fonts or designs that copy, or are substantially similar to, Patagonia’s logos.”
The filing argues that Pattie Gonia breached this agreement in late 2024 when she started selling merchandise with her drag name. After Patagonia asked the performer to stop, according to its complaint, “Pattie Gonia’s actions confirmed that she did not intend to abide by the understanding the parties reached in February 2022.” Pattie Gonia claims that she did not believe that conversation to be definitive of her future, but specific to the context of the one partnership that sparked it.
The crucial complication is that Pattie Gonia also filed a trademark application in September 2025, seeking rights to the name “Pattie Gonia” in order to sell clothing and continue to expand her personal brand by way of endorsements, brand deals, and promoting her activism. In the suit, Patagonia alleges that this would overlap with its existing business in these areas.
The tricky part is that, despite Patagonia being a famously progressive company and its values being so in tune with Pattie Gonia’s, it is still legally entitled to protect its intellectual property. More so, Patagonia failing to do so would theoretically weaken its trademark. Patagonia is known for its own activism, like suing the US government and President Donald Trump in 2017 for his proclamations that significantly reduced the protected land of two national monuments, or including labels in its clothing with the message “Vote the Assholes Out” ahead of the 2020 election against politicians who sided with climate change denialism.
“While we wish we didn’t have to do this—and actively engaged with Pattie for several years to avoid this—it has become necessary to protect the brand we have spent the last 50 years building,” the company wrote in a statement posted to its website on January 21. “We want 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.”
The friction is that the existence of trademarked products under Pattie Gonia would seemingly imply, legally, that Patagonia has sponsored them, or at least approved of their existence, which weakens its existing trademark.
It is fair enough, I’d say, for Pattie Gonia to want to continue growing her brand in the same way many of her counterparts in the drag space have, with merchandise and various products that can support and fund her work. Pattie Gonia has reminded her audience that the name Patagonia derives from the place. Still, she has said in the past that her own name and brand were inspired by the brand itself, not specifically the place. This is Pattie Gonia v. Patagonia the label, not the region.
Two past RuPaul’s Drag Race contestants come to mind. Jan Sport, who named herself after the backpack brand JanSport, dropped her adopted last name while participating in the reality competition, presumably to avoid this very kind of predicament. (This week, Jan Sport posted a TikTok in which she acknowledged that her situaton has been compared to Patti Gonia’s, and flaunted her good relationship with JanSport, including a product collaboration.) And then there’s Trixie Mattel, one of the most notable past Drag Race contestants, whose name is a nod to the toy manufacturer. Her cosmetics brand uses her first name only as Trixie Cosmetics, as do her other ventures, including a hotel and its adjacent reality television show Trixie Motel.
That Patagonia has let it come this far and allowed Pattie Gonia to grow her profile to this scale seems to be an indication that it saw a world in which both could coexist. I would even argue that both brands have had something of a symbiotic relationship: Pattie Gonia’s existence going unchallenged by Patagonia could be viewed as a tacit endorsement or approval of her work. And her activism has seemingly helped to expand the reach and credibility of the brand in queer spaces.
Now that Pattie Gonia has taken to the jury of the people, meaning the internet, she’s mobilized troops of progressive online sleuths who are siding with her (“keep the pressure on,” she asks her followers in a comment), largely because of a general anticorportation sentiment. (A representative for Pattie Gonia declined to comment for this story.)
On the other hand, there has been a growing audience on TikTok and X who are skeptical of Pattie Gonia’s arguments and argue that her filing for a trademark would infringe on Patagonia’s. These kinds of posts and comments have been met with others calling anyone “defending corporations” all sorts of names, including but not limited to “bootlicker.”
Alas, who is in the right is not to be determined by an online jury.
On Saturday, Pattie Gonia posted another video on Instagram saying that she had been “blindsided” by the suit. She claimed Patagonia lied by suggesting it had reached out prior to the suit for a conversation, yet she appeared to be seeking some sort of resolution. (In response to a request for comment, Patagonia said, in part, “Over the past several years, we’ve tried to find a path forward that would allow Pattie Gonia to continue their work while also protecting the Patagonia trademark. These conversations have included multiple proposals—each intended to support that path—along with ongoing dialogue and genuine efforts to avoid this ending up in court. Unfortunately, we could not reach an agreement.”) In the video, she offers to drop the trademark application if Patagonia agrees to drop the lawsuit, which seems to be what the brand was seeking in the first place. Simple enough!
Not so fast! By Monday, Patagonia posted its own response. All of this, by the way, is all playing out on Instagram.
“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 shared. “We don’t want to argue trademark law on social media,” the statement read, before offering a bulleted list with a path to resolution. The company said it would drop the suit if Pattie Gonia withdraws all trademark applications, ceases the use of their logos, and stops selling and promoting apparel and other products as “Pattie Gonia.” “If we can agree on this, we can work out everything else, and Pattie Gonia could continue as a performer and activist. We share common ground with them, including the goal of saving our home planet and creating a more inclusive outdoors,” the statement read.
Pattie Gonia replied in yet another post on Monday, and said the proposal to stop selling and promote goods using the name “Pattie Gonia,” as suggested by the company, would effectively “erase her advocacy.” “No deal, Patagonia,” Pattie Gonia wrote on Instagram.
By giving the internet a seat at the table, the parties have in a way ensured that there will be no winner here. (Streisand effect, anyone?)
Pattie Gonia’s visibility has increased exponentially, but her politics and principles are now under the internet’s microscope. And Patagonia, despite being woke, and arguably the same brand of it that Pattie Gonia subscribes to, now has a blemish in its records.
What Reading Martha Moxley’s Haunting Diary Reveals Now
Noah Wyle Defends Dr. Robby’s Fall From Grace
I Was the Face of New York Magazine’s Controversial, Andrew Cunanan–Inspired “Trophy Boys” Cover Story
The Wild, Strange Case Todd Blanche Can’t Seem to Escape
Source: VanityFair | Read the Full Story…
