Patagonia tries to (trade) mark its territory against US drag artist, Pattie Gonia

Background

By Penelope Bate, Arts Law Secondee

Patagonia, Inc. is a US-based outdoor apparel and equipment company with over 50 years of brand history. “Pattie Gonia” is the professional drag persona of Wyn Wiley, a Bend, Oregan-based environmental activist and social media personality. Since the character’s creation in 2018, Pattie Gonia has amassed a huge following on social media platforms.

The persona Pattie Gonia has operated in a space closely adjacent to Patagonia’s own commercial and advocacy activities – namely outdoor recreation, environmental activism, and the sale and promotion of apparel. This overlap is central to Patagonia’s legal complaint and though is a case in the United States (US) is likely to be of interest also to Australian performance artists and others who are interested in deploying existing branding perhaps to leverage, comment or critique them. It is also of general interest in the context of informal arrangements that artists may be tempted to enter with powerful entities, be they big brands or labels, broadcasting networks, collecting institutions or private dealers, and what happens when things go wrong.

Proceedings

On 21 January 2026, Patagonia filed a complaint in the United States (US) District Court for the Central District of California against Wyn Wiley, alleging trade mark infringement, trade mark dilution, and unfair competition. The complaint seeks US$1 in nominal damages, along with legal costs. The matter has been filed as a jury trial.

Patagonia’s complaint identifies two principal triggers for the litigation:

• In late 2024, Pattie Gonia began selling “Pattie Gonia” branded merchandise, including items using versions of Patagonia’s logo, in alleged breach of an existing informal agreement between the parties; and
• In September 2025, Pattie Gonia filed a trade mark application seeking exclusive rights to the “Pattie Gonia” brand across a broad range of activities, including the sale of clothing and apparel, environmental advocacy, online marketing, endorsements, and motivational speaking services.

Patagonia contends that granting such a trade mark would directly overlap with its own registered trade marks and commercial activities. In its January 2026 public statement, the company stated:

“We cannot selectively choose to enforce our rights based on whether we agree with a particular point of view. Inconsistent enforcement might prevent us from stopping entities like the oil and gas lobby, counterfeiters, hate groups, or other bad actors from using the Patagonia name and logo. These are not hypothetical examples; they are real instances of past trademark infringements we successfully stopped only because we have been consistent in defending our rights.”

Prior Agreement Between the Parties

Patagonia has stated that it engaged with Pattie Gonia for several years prior to initiating proceedings in effort to reach agreement. According to Patagonia, an informal arrangement was in place – understood to permit Pattie Gonia to continue advocacy activities but not commercialising the name in a way that would conflict with Patagonia’s brand. Patagonia’s public communications indicate this functioned without incident for a period before breaking down in late 2024.

Pattie Gonia disputes the scope of that agreement. In statements made in May 2026, she characterised the 2022 arrangement as specific to a third-party collaboration rather than a broad restriction on future commercial activity, stating:

“In 2022, when I was collaborating with a third party, Patagonia asked me to follow certain terms, and I did. That wasn’t a broad agreement about my future.”

Public Statements and Settlement Negotiations

Pattie Gonia maintained public silence on the matter for approximately four months following the filing of the complaint. On 27 May 2026, she issued a public statement via Instagram, framing the dispute as an existential threat to the brand Pattie Gonia and the advocacy work conducted under that name. She stated:

“This is a betrayal of Patagonia’s core mission. Because if they are ‘in business to save the home planet,’ why are they suing a climate activist?”

Pattie Gonia also contested Patagonia’s characterisation of the claim as nominal, noting that while damages sought are US$1, the total legal exposure – including legal fees – could exceed US$1 million.

In response, Patagonia issued an updated public statement on 2 June 2026 acknowledging the hurt caused by the litigation, especially in the LGBTQ+ community, and reiterating its desire to resolve the matter. Patagonia set out three conditions for settlement:

• Withdrawal of all trade mark applications filed by Wiley under the Pattie Gonia name;
• Cessation of use of Patagonia’s logos; and
• Cessation of selling and promoting apparel and other products under the Pattie Gonia name.

Pattie Gonia responded on 3 June 2026, confirming acceptance of the first two conditions. The third condition was rejected. Her response explained that the prohibition on commercial activity under the Pattie Gonia name would extend beyond merchandise to encompass brand partnerships – the primary mechanism through which the advocacy activities are funded – effectively rendering the persona non-viable. She stated:

“If I can’t do partnerships as Pattie Gonia, it breaks the whole ecosystem of advocacy and community engagement. And they understand this because their work is built on the same model – advocacy work funded through commercial work.”

Current Status

As of 4 June 2026, the matter remains unresolved. No settlement has been reached and no court date has been publicly announced. Both parties continue to make statements via social media. The substantive dispute now centres on whether Wiley can continue to operate commercially under the Pattie Gonia name – a question that goes beyond the trade mark application itself and implicates the ongoing viability of the persona as an arts, commercial and advocacy enterprise. Stay tuned for what happens next.