Why is Patagonia suing drag queens
Executive summary
Patagonia has filed a federal trademark-infringement lawsuit against drag performer and environmental activist Pattie Gonia (Wyn Wiley), saying her use of the name and Patagonia-like imagery on apparel and in trademark applications creates consumer confusion and threatens the outdoor brand’s advocacy platform; the company seeks nominal damages and court orders blocking the use and registration of “Pattie Gonia” for competing goods and services [1] [2] [3]. Patagonia frames the suit as a last resort after years of discussions and a 2022 agreement it says Wiley broke when she began selling merchandise and seeking federal trademark protection [2] [4].
1. The legal claim: trademark confusion and imitation
Patagonia’s complaint alleges that Pattie Gonia sold apparel and used branding that closely copies Patagonia’s name, mountain imagery and logo styling, and that those uses—especially on products and in advocacy tied to environmental sustainability—are likely to cause consumer confusion with Patagonia’s marks, constituting trademark infringement [1] [3] [5].
2. The backstory: talks, an agreement, and the alleged breach
According to Patagonia, the company first raised concerns in early 2022 when Wiley sought brand partnerships, reached a temporary understanding that she would not use “Pattie Gonia” on product or imitate Patagonia’s branding, and then saw that understanding unravel after Wiley began selling “Pattie Gonia” merchandise in 2024 and filed a federal trademark application in 2025 covering apparel and advocacy services [1] [4] [5].
3. What Patagonia says it wants and why it framed the suit narrowly
Patagonia’s public statement emphasizes protecting “the brand we have spent the last 50 years building,” says the company tried to resolve matters privately for more than three years, and stresses it supports creative expression while seeking only nominal monetary relief—asking the court mainly to stop Wiley’s alleged infringements and prevent federal registration of “Pattie Gonia” for competing goods and services [2] [6] [7].
4. Who Pattie Gonia is and why this is complicated
Wyn Wiley, known as Pattie Gonia, is a climate and LGBTQ+ advocate and performer who has used the stage name in activism and fundraising; reporting notes her environmental work and public stunts, and cites her efforts to partner with outdoor brands, which is what triggered Patagonia’s initial outreach [8] [9] [10].
5. Brand control vs. cultural expression: competing rationales
Legal disputes like this sit at the intersection of intellectual property law and cultural expression: Patagonia argues trademark protection is necessary to prevent dilution and confusion—especially where the brand’s advocacy is part of its identity—while critics say suing an activist with a playful pun can harm Patagonia’s image and chill creative or advocacy efforts; observers note both the legal legitimacy of protecting marks and the public-relations risk of suing a popular climate advocate [5] [8] [4].
6. Reactions, hidden motives and media framing to watch for
Coverage varies: trade and law outlets focus on precedent and trademark technicalities [3] [4], queer and culture outlets highlight the clash between corporate power and a community figure [7] [11], and partisan sites may frame the suit to score cultural-political points [10]; readers should note each outlet’s incentives—brands defend assets, performers defend creative identity, and reporters or commentators may emphasize either legal or cultural angles depending on audience [2] [10].
7. What comes next and what this case will test
The suit will proceed in federal court, where judges will weigh whether Pattie Gonia’s commercial uses and trademark filings actually infringe or merely parody/evoke Patagonia, and whether a prior private agreement binds Wiley’s later choices; the decision could clarify how courts balance trademark protection against artistic names that riff on established brands, but current reporting does not include a court ruling or Wiley’s full public legal response at this stage [1] [3] [4].