Patagonia Sues Drag Performer Pattie Gonia for Trademark Infringement After Apparel Sales and Filing

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The outdoor apparel company argued that Pattie Gonia moved away from discrete use of a persona to engage in activism and transformed into a commercial enterprise, causing irreparable harm to the company.

Pattie Gonia was created by Wyn Wiley in 2018 when Wiley put on a pair of heels during a backpacking trip and named the drag persona after the Patagonia region in South America. Gonia has built an online community connecting queer people, people of colour and lower-income communities with the outdoors and has staged climate-inspired drag shows across the United States.

8 million followers on Instagram and nearly 900,000 on TikTok.

Wiley also cofounded the Oath, an organisation that promotes climate solutions and inclusion. According to the lawsuit, Patagonia met with Gonia in 2022 and Gonia agreed to restrict use of the Pattie Gonia name on fonts or designs that mimic Patagonia’s. In 2025 Gonia started selling Pattie Gonia-branded apparel online.

Patagonia asked Gonia to stop, citing the 2022 agreement. Several months later Gonia filed a trademark application seeking to register the name for clothing, marketing and events. Gonia spoke publicly on social media last week for the first time since the lawsuit was filed.

Gonia stated that the company was trying to take away their name permanently and erase an activist, and called on Patagonia to drop the lawsuit. Gonia denied ever using the Patagonia brand, logo or font on the merchandise website and said the lawsuit cherry-picks examples of playful parody and fan art.

Gonia stated that the 2022 meeting was not a broad agreement about future use and said drag is built on parody, puns and jokes, but added willingness to never parody the logo again.

Gonia said the trademark application was filed because of a dispute facing another drag queen, Lexi Love, not to compete with a multibillion-dollar corporation. Gonia stated the timing of the lawsuit at the height of anti-LGBTQ politics and attacks was purposeful. In a response to the filing, Gonia denied the allegations and asked for a full jury trial.

In a statement posted after Gonia’s online comments, Patagonia acknowledged any hurt the lawsuit has caused, especially in the LGBTQ+ community, and said it continues to want to resolve the dispute. Patagonia stated it can resolve the matter if Gonia removes the trademark applications, ceases use of the mountain landscape logo, and stops the sale and promotion of apparel and other products as Pattie Gonia.

If those conditions are met, Patagonia said Pattie Gonia could continue as a performer and activist.

Patagonia added that the two sides share common ground, including the goal of saving the planet and creating a more inclusive outdoors. Nancy J. Mertzel, a trademark lawyer not affiliated with the case, said the lawsuit will hinge on the role of First Amendment rights and parody in a dispute over a brand name and services.

Mertzel stated that even though Patagonia is a public benefit-minded corporation, it needs to protect its assets and that there is a lot at stake for Pattie Gonia as a spokesperson and environmental activist. Mertzel noted the common saying in the trademark world that owners must actively police and enforce their marks, adding that trademarks become weaker if they are not enforced.

Mertzel said additional examples exist of others appropriating Patagonia’s name, including for oil and paramilitary organisations.

Mertzel stated the two fundamental issues are whether Pattie Gonia is likely to cause confusion or dilute Patagonia’s brand and whether Pattie Gonia should be entitled to a trademark registration. Mertzel added that the test is likelihood of confusion, not proof of actual confusion, and that the question is whether anyone will think Patagonia has endorsed or sponsored Pattie Gonia’s goods and services.