Outdoor apparel brand Patagonia and drag performer and entrepreneur Pattie Gonia have become embroiled in a high-profile trade mark dispute, highlighting the increasing intersection between intellectual property rights, personal branding and social media.
In January 2026, Patagonia filed a trade mark infringement claim before a federal court in Los Angeles, California, in relation to the use and registration of the sign “PATTIE GONIA”. Patagonia’s case seeks to protect its longstanding brand from what it considers to be overlapping and conflicting commercial use.
In a press release accompanying the filing, Patagonia stated:
“These rights [sought by Pattie Gonia] would directly overlap with the work we do and the products we provide – for which we have longstanding rights and trademark registrations.”
In response, Wyn Wiley, who performs as Pattie Gonia, characterised the claim as an attempt to force the performer to “cease to exist”, framing the dispute as one involving identity as well as commercial activity.
Background to Patagonia v PATTIE GONIA
Prior to 2025, the parties had been in contact regarding the use of the name “Pattie Gonia”, and are reported to have reached an agreement in 2022 concerning Wiley’s use of the mark in connection with their drag persona and environmental advocacy.
However, according to Patagonia’s complaint, the nature and scope of that use has evolved. Patagonia alleges that Pattie Gonia has moved beyond use of the name solely as a persona and activist platform and has instead developed a broader commercial brand offering under the PATTIE GONIA name.
In particular, Patagonia claims that:
- Pattie Gonia began selling branded merchandise online in 2024;
- in September 2025, an application was filed seeking trade mark protection for “PATTIE GONIA” covering apparel, merchandise and related promotional services; and
- the brand is now used in connection with commercial collaborations, events and endorsements.
Patagonia further alleges that there is evidence of actual consumer confusion, particularly on social media platforms, with some users mistakenly assuming a commercial link or affiliation between Pattie Gonia and Patagonia.
Patagonia has a well-established track record of actively enforcing its trade mark rights, including against third-party uses such as FRATAGONIA, CATAGONIA and PETAGONIA, which it has previously challenged as infringing or dilutive of its brand.
Developments and settlement positioning
The dispute has continued to unfold publicly, with both parties taking to social media to communicate their positions.
At the time of writing, Patagonia has indicated (via Instagram) that it would be prepared to withdraw its trade mark claims on the basis that Pattie Gonia:
- ceases use of the Patagonia logo;
- withdraws the PATTIE GONIA trade mark application; and
- ceases selling and promoting branded apparel and products under the PATTIE GONIA name.
Pattie Gonia has publicly rejected the third of these conditions, indicating that the ability to engage in partnerships, merchandising and related commercial activities under that name is central to the brand and not negotiable.
Comment – a complex and public dispute
This dispute illustrates the challenges faced by brand owners in enforcing their rights in circumstances where:
- the allegedly conflicting sign is closely tied to an individual’s identity and public persona; and
- the dispute is playing out in real time across social media platforms.
While Patagonia’s legal position—particularly in relation to likelihood of confusion and brand protection—may be arguable, the public-facing nature of the dispute introduces reputational considerations that do not arise in more conventional enforcement actions.
The timing of the dispute, including its visibility in the lead-up to Pride month, as well as the use of social media by both parties to shape the narrative, increases the risk that enforcement activity may be perceived negatively, particularly among younger and value-driven audiences.
It therefore presents a dual challenge for Patagonia: balancing legitimate trade mark enforcement with the need to manage brand perception and stakeholder expectations.
Conclusion
The outcome of this dispute will be of interest not only from a legal perspective, but also in terms of how trade mark rights are enforced in an era where personal branding, activism and commerce are increasingly intertwined.
Boult Wade Tennant will continue to monitor developments. Our team advises both established brands and emerging businesses on protecting and commercialising their intellectual property rights in complex and fast-moving environments.
Read more from our award-winning trade mark team.
