Pattie Gonia: witty, but does Patagonia allow it?
Pattie Gonia is the drag persona of Wyn Wiley, an American climate activist with a large online reach.
She has millions of followers and has raised funds for environmental and social justice charities. All very commendable, of course, but Pattie Gonia is also a witty nod to Patagonia.
Patagonia could still appreciate that nod. But Wiley also applied to register the name Pattie Gonia as a trademark. The application covered, among other things, merchandise, clothing, marketing services, environmental campaigns, performances and digital music files. For Patagonia, that was the turning point: what began as a drag name with a humorous reference to the well-known outdoor brand became, according to Patagonia, a sign that the name could be used more broadly and commercially, potentially conflicting with its interests as a trademark owner. Patagonia therefore started proceedings in Los Angeles this year. The company is claiming a symbolic one dollar in damages, plus legal costs.
Does Pattie Gonia infringe the Patagonia trademark, or does the use fall within parody, expression and activism? Patagonia bases its case on trademark infringement, likelihood of confusion, dilution of a famous mark and unfair competition. In the complaint, Patagonia argues that the public may believer there is a commercial connection, collaboration or endorsement between Patagonia and Pattie Gonia. Patagonia also points out that Pattie Gonia has used elements reminiscent of Patagonia, including references to its logo, mountain imagery and brand presentation. According to Patagonia, it must act consistently against parties that adopt its name or logo, because selective enforcement could later work against it. Pattie Gonia, for her part, argues that drag is precisely about parody and creative reference, and that she does not use Patagonia’s logo or house style.
A difficult issue for Patagonia. In our view, not so much legally—commercial use of a parody can quickly amount to infringement—but above all socially. Patagonia will naturally not want to be known as the big brand taking a stand against environmental and social justice. That is probably why the damages claim is symbolic. What weighs in Patagonia’s favour is that it has made clear that discussions had previously taken place about avoiding use that comes too close to its brand. This shows that Patagonia did everything it could to resolve the matter peacefully. Still, Patagonia is walking on eggshells here, and explaining carefully why it is taking action remains vital.
Author: Arnaud Bos
Bio: Arnaud is trademark attorney and within Knijff responsible for the marketing & communication. Arnaud is specialist in the metaverse and music sectors and his client portfolio includes many upcoming and renowned bands. He keeps a close eye on the latest case law in the EU and will let you know when he sees remarkable applications.