When infringement is a drag: the Patagonia v Pattie Gonia showdown

Trade mark infringement has been filling the headlines in recent weeks, following the US lawsuit filed by outdoor clothing and equipment brand Patagonia against drag queen and climate activist Pattie Gonia. The court of public opinion is split between those who see this as a David and Goliath story, a billion-dollar corporation against one individual, and those who view the dispute as a necessary part of Patagonia’s brand protection strategy.

The Patagonia brand has been trading under that name since 1973, with well-known core values built around environmental stewardship and sustainability. Pattie Gonia (real name Wyn Wiley) is a drag queen and climate activist with a sizeable social media following, who has been performing under that name since 2018.

Prior to the lawsuit, Patagonia and Pattie Gonia appear to have co-existed peacefully for a number of years. However, in late 2024, Pattie Gonia began selling branded clothing with the “Pattie Gonia” name. She proceeded to file a trade mark application with the USPTO in September 2025, seeking exclusive rights to use the “Pattie Gonia” brand for clothing, environmental activism and drag shows, among other goods and services. Following this, Patagonia filed a trade mark infringement lawsuit against Pattie Gonia in January 2026, for a nominal $1.

In a statement released on Instagram, Pattie Gonia described the lawsuit as “a corporation trying to erase an activist”, positioning the conflict as a “betrayal of [Patagonia’s] core mission”. Patagonia responded by releasing a statement on Instagram, affirming its willingness to drop the lawsuit if Pattie Gonia withdraws her trade mark applications and refrains from using Patagonia logos or the Pattie Gonia brand to promote her own products.

If Patagonia does not defend its trade mark by enforcing it against potential infringements, they risk diminishing its distinctive character. The owner of a trade mark generally enjoys the exclusive right to use that mark on the goods and services they have applied to use it for. Infringement takes place when a third party uses an identical or confusingly similar trade mark, in relation to identical or similar goods and services. Failing to take action against third parties using similar marks may result the mark being weakened over time, which will make it more difficult to enforce.

This has left Patagonia in a difficult position: finding the balance between protecting its commercial interests, and its public image as a brand focused on environmental advocacy. Pattie Gonia has denied using Patagonia branding on her website, claiming that the lawsuit was based on examples of parody, which is a staple element of drag performance. But is this a valid defence to a claim of trade mark infringement?

In the United States, parody is protected by the First Amendment as a form of expression. When determining whether a parody amounts to trade mark infringement, the normal likelihood of confusion test applies. Parody with the purpose of criticising or commenting on the original brand is less likely to be viewed as infringement, compared to parody for commercial use. Thus, it is no surprise that Pattie Gonia’s use of her name on merchandise was viewed as an infringing action by Patagonia despite having tolerated use of the name as a drag queen for several years.

The UK takes a similar approach to trade mark parody. Section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 states that the use of a sign which “takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark” amounts to infringement and there is no specific parody defence. The mere fact that it potentially tarnishes the reputation of the earlier mark is enough to prevent its use. For more, see our article Parody in Trade Mark Law.

Historically, drag queens have adopted pun-heavy names that are rich with double meanings, some of which offer a humorous take on well-known brands. Pattie Gonia’s case has been picked up by mainstream media because of her large social media following, but this is not the first time a drag queen’s name has been in contention.

In 2025, RuPaul’s Drag Race finalist Lexi Love (real name Cody Barnes) found themselves in the centre of a trade mark infringement dispute with former adult actress Selena Scola, who had previously used the name “Lexi Love”. Following Barnes’ appearance on Drag Race, Scola sued Barnes for trade mark infringement, claiming that her use of the name dated back to 2004, while Barnes only began using the name in 2009. While the case is still ongoing, it highlights some common issues involved with selecting a stage name.

However, other drag queens with punny names have managed to evade intellectual property issues in a number of ways. Brita Filter and Jan Sport, whose names parody the water filter and backpack brands respectively, have both made successful appearances on Drag Race, potentially avoiding copyright issues by competing under the shortened names “Brita” and “Jan”. Following the show’s conclusion, Jan Sport took it a step further by launching an official collaboration with her namesake brand, describing it as receiving the “company’s blessing”.

For the most well-known performers, a stage name can even be distinctive enough in its own right to be a valid trade mark. Trixie Mattel, whose last name is a nod to the toy company Mattel, successfully secured a US trade mark registration for her motel business “TRIXIE MOTEL”, and her other entrepreneurial ventures include the cosmetics brand Trixie Cosmetics. Like Brita Filter and Jan Sport, Trixie Mattel has built a reputation in her drag name that persists even after the potentially problematic element of it has been dropped.

Could Pattie Gonia simply be known as “Pattie”? She has indicated a willingness to cancel the trade mark application and refrain from using Patagonia logos, but not to stop using the Pattie Gonia name on products altogether, citing her partnership work with other brands as an important revenue stream that funds her activism. It will be interesting to see how this lawsuit will play out: for now, we will have to end on a cliffhanger.