On January 21, 2026, iconic outdoor apparel company Patagonia, Inc. filed a federal lawsuit against drag queen and environmental activist Pattie Gonia alleging trademark infringement, a case that’s getting attention for what it teaches businesses about the ever-present risks around brand protection.
At its core, Patagonia claims that Pattie Gonia’s use of a name that closely resembles its own, and on related merchandise and services, creates the potential for consumer confusion, dilutes Patagonia’s well-established brand, and violates a prior agreement between the parties. The lawsuit seeks a nominal $1 in damages and, more importantly, a court order preventing further infringements.
But beyond the headlines, there are practical legal lessons here for creatives, startups, and established companies alike.
A Trademark Is One of Your Most Valuable Business Assets
Trademarks aren’t just logos and names on products — they’re the symbolic shorthand the public uses to recognize the origin of your goods and services. Over decades, brands like Patagonia build goodwill and consumer trust in their marks. When another party uses a closely similar name in a related context, even if intended as homage or play on words, courts can find that it risks consumer confusion and dilution of the original mark.
For businesses of all sizes, this underscores the importance of:
- Securing federal registration where possible;
- Enforcing your rights consistently; and
- Monitoring the marketplace for potential overlap or misuse.
Failure to police your marks can weaken them over time and limit your ability to enforce them in court.
Agreements Around Use of Brand Identifiers Matter and They Must Be Respected
According to Patagonia, the company and Pattie Gonia had communicated and reached an understanding years ago about how the drag performer could use the “Pattie Gonia” name without infringing Patagonia’s rights.
However, the lawsuit alleges that later actions, including selling merchandise and applying for federal registration of “Pattie Gonia” for commercial use, went beyond that agreement.
Lesson for business owners:
If you enter into informal or formal agreements on intellectual property use, ensure that the terms are clear, documented, and consistently followed. Disputes often stem from misunderstandings about scope and interpretation.
Consumer Confusion Is the Central Legal Question in Trademark Cases
In trademark law, the key question is whether the public is likely to be confused about the source or sponsorship of goods or services. Patagonia’s complaint includes alleged examples of merchandise and imagery that it believes make customers think there’s an association between the two brands.
Even when two parties are operating in different spheres, especially when one is a large corporation and the other is a personality or grassroots figure, the legal standard focuses on how similar the marks are and how close the goods/services are in the eyes of consumers.
For creators and business owners alike:
- Choosing a name that closely mimics an existing trademark in your industry can be risky;
- A name might feel clever or flattering, but trademark law doesn’t measure intent — it measures confusion.
Strong Brands Must Protect Their Identity — Even Against Friendly or Aligned Voices
One reason this particular lawsuit has captured public attention is the juxtaposition of Patagonia’s environmental advocacy with the activism of Pattie Gonia, whose work also centers on climate, outdoor inclusivity, and community building.
Nevertheless, Patagonia framed its decision as one of protecting its legal rights, not suppressing expression:
“We want Pattie to have a long and successful career … but in a way that respects Patagonia’s intellectual property.”
For lawyers and brands advising clients, this case offers a reminder that IP enforcement is not just about litigation, it’s a strategic business decision tied to preserving the long-term integrity of a brand.
The Creative Community Needs to Balance Expression with Legal Realities
For artists, influencers, and entrepreneurs who build brands around memorable identities, the Pattie Gonia case highlights an important tension:
- Creative expression can blur into commercial branding; and
- What starts as performance or advocacy can grow into merchandise, products, and trademarks with real legal consequences.
Before launching merchandise or pursuing a trademark on a name inspired by or similar to an existing brand, it’s wise to conduct a comprehensive clearance search and consult experienced trademark counsel.
Conclusion
The Patagonia–Pattie Gonia lawsuit is a reminder that trademark issues don’t just affect multinational corporations, they affect startups, creators, influencers, and growing businesses every day. A name, logo, slogan, voice, or overall brand identity can be one of your most valuable assets, but only if it is properly cleared, registered, and protected.
At Romano Law, our intellectual property attorneys help clients identify, secure, and enforce their full portfolio of trademark rights—often including valuable brand elements they did not even realize were protectable. From clearance searches and federal trademark registration to licensing, enforcement, and infringement defense, we work with businesses and creatives to build brand protection strategies that grow with their companies.
If you are launching a new brand, expanding into merchandise, or concerned about potential infringement, now is the time to act. Contact Romano Law today to evaluate your trademarks and ensure your brand is protected before confusion—or costly litigation—arises.
Contributions to this blog by Kennedy McKinney.
