On January 21, 2026, Patagonia, Inc. filed a federal lawsuit against drag performer and environmental activist Pattie Gonia — the stage name of Wyn Wiley — alleging trademark infringement and related claims. The case has drawn significant attention both for its cultural dimensions and for legal questions that are more complex than the headlines suggest.
Patagonia claims that the Pattie Gonia name, used commercially on merchandise and in trademark filings covering apparel and advocacy-related services, creates a likelihood of consumer confusion and violates a prior understanding between the parties. Pattie Gonia disputes both. As of this writing, the parties are at an impasse: Patagonia has offered to dismiss the case if Pattie Gonia withdraws her applications and stops selling branded merchandise; Pattie Gonia has declined.
Beyond the headlines, this dispute offers practical lessons for businesses, brands, and creators of all sizes — about trademark strategy, the nuances of infringement law, and the tools available for resolving disputes short of litigation.
A Trademark Is One of Your Most Valuable Business Assets
Trademarks are not just logos and names on products. They are the shorthand the public uses to identify the source of goods and services — and a strong trademark accumulates goodwill that has real commercial value. Trademarks inform purchasing decisions, support licensing deals, and underlie the premium pricing that recognized brands command.
Patagonia has been building its mark since 1973. That fifty-year investment gives it both the right and the legal obligation to protect the mark. A trademark owner who fails to police against confusingly similar uses risks weakening or eventually losing the ability to enforce it at all.
The Risk of Genericide
The most serious long-term consequence of failing to protect a trademark is not losing a single lawsuit. It is losing the mark entirely — through a process called genericide. Genericide occurs when a trademark becomes so associated with a product category, rather than a specific source, that the public uses it as the generic term. Once that happens, the owner loses exclusive rights. Aspirin, escalator, thermos, trampoline, and cellophane were all once registered trademarks. Their owners lost protection because consumers stopped associating the words with a single company and started using them to describe any product of that type.
Genericide is almost always accelerated by the trademark owner’s own conduct: inconsistent usage, unlicensed uses left unchallenged, or allowing others (including its own partners) to use the mark in ways that blur its source-identifying function. Xerox spent decades and millions of dollars reminding the public to “photocopy” rather than “Xerox” a document. Google faces the same pressure today (and has so far succeeded). These aren’t just public relations campaigns — they are legal strategies, and the documented effort is evidence a court can rely on. A mark that is not actively defended is a mark that is slowly being given away.
Building and Protecting Mark Strength: The Practical Toolkit
Trademark protection is not just about filing registrations and watching for infringers. The strongest marks are the product of sustained, deliberate business strategy — and the law rewards that investment in concrete ways.
- Proper trademark usage on packaging and in advertising. Marks should always be used as adjectives modifying the generic product name — never as nouns or verbs. “Patagonia® fleece jacket” is correct. “Buy a Patagonia” is the kind of usage that, repeated across millions of consumers over decades, erodes distinctiveness. Packaging should consistently display the ® symbol (for registered marks) or ™ (for unregistered marks), with the generic descriptor alongside the brand name. Courts treat consistent adjective-plus-descriptor usage as evidence that the owner has actively maintained the mark’s source-identifying function.
- Advertising investment and secondary meaning. The law explicitly rewards businesses that build consumer recognition of their marks. Secondary meaning — the association in consumers’ minds between a mark and a single commercial source — is required to protect descriptive and geographically descriptive marks, and it strengthens protection for any mark in an infringement dispute. Courts and the USPTO look at advertising spend, sales figures, consumer surveys, media coverage, and years of exclusive use. A company with decades of brand advertising behind it holds a real advantage in litigation: its mark is deemed stronger, and stronger marks get broader protection. Marketing spend is not just a sales investment — it is a legal one.
- Controlled licensing. Licenses that permit others to use a mark must include quality control provisions. A licensor who fails to exercise meaningful quality control risks what courts call a “naked license” — and a naked license can result in the loss of trademark rights entirely. Properly structured licenses generate revenue and expand the mark’s commercial presence while preserving its legal integrity.
- Consistent enforcement with documentation. Enforcement does not require litigation to be effective. Cease-and-desist letters, informal objections, USPTO opposition proceedings, and coexistence agreements all count. What matters is a consistent, documented practice of monitoring and responding to potential conflicts.
- Brand guidelines. Written guidelines governing how the mark may be used — by employees, licensees, vendors, and partners — reduce inadvertent misuse and create a documented record of intent to maintain the mark’s distinctiveness.
For companies that invest in these practices, formal legal action tends to be the last resort. The cases of Tater Tot® and Onesies® illustrate what that looks like in practice — two marks that have survived decades of genericide risk with very different strategies, and relatively little litigation.
Case Studies: Tater Tot® and Onesies®
Tater Tot®: Seven Decades of Market Dominance, No Known Litigation
Ore-Ida filed the TATER TOTS® trademark in 1957 and registered it in 1958. The mark has been owned since 1965 by what is now Kraft Heinz — a company with every resource to litigate. It has apparently never needed to.
The term “tater tots” is used generically on restaurant menus, in recipes, and in everyday speech. Competitors sell cylindrical fried potato products. The TATER TOTS® registration has remained live and unchallenged regardless, because Ore-Ida and Kraft Heinz have maintained the mark’s source-identifying function through brand investment rather than lawsuits.
When competitors capitalized on the product’s popularity and consumers still called those competing products “tater tots,” Ore-Ida’s response was the “Imi-Taters” advertising campaign — a direct-to-consumer push that reinforced Ore-Ida as the original and distinguished it from imitations. More recently, for the 20th anniversary of Napoleon Dynamite — a film culturally inseparable from Tater Tots — Ore-Ida partnered with the filmmakers and actor Jon Heder to release limited-edition “Tot-Protecting Pants.” That is not a legal strategy. It is a brand strategy. And it is the reason the trademark remains strong.
What matters legally is not how consumers casually describe a product category — it is whether they associate the mark with a single commercial source when making purchasing decisions. Ore-Ida has spent seventy years ensuring that when someone reaches for Tater Tots in the frozen food aisle, they know whose product they are buying. That association is the mark.
Onesies®: Omnichannel Enforcement That Minimizes Litigation
Gerber Childrenswear’s ONESIES® mark faces more acute genericness pressure than Tater Tot — the term appears in dictionary definitions, in third-party USPTO filings, and across virtually every retail platform. Gerber’s response is instructive: a multi-channel enforcement infrastructure designed to protect the mark at scale without making litigation the primary tool.
The foundation is a publicly available brand standards page on Gerber’s website. It is explicit: ONESIES® “may not be used as a generic descriptor or a noun; it should be used only as an adjective.” The page provides examples of correct and incorrect usage, requires the ® symbol, mandates the word “brand” between the mark and the generic product term (“Onesies® brand bodysuit,” not “an onesie”), and addresses retailers, advertisers, and content creators directly. That page is not merely a courtesy to partners — it is a legal document establishing that Gerber has consistently and publicly asserted the mark’s proprietary status.
From that foundation, Gerber enforces through administrative channels:
- Platform-level enforcement. Gerber sends cease-and-desist letters to online sellers using “onesie” to advertise non-Gerber products and uses platform trademark programs — such as Amazon’s Brand Registry — to remove infringing listings without filing suit.
- USPTO opposition proceedings. Gerber monitors new trademark applications and opposes conflicting marks before they are granted. TTAB proceedings are administrative, not judicial — faster, cheaper, and less public than federal litigation.
- Targeted commercial litigation, selectively deployed. When a direct competitor adopts a confusingly similar brand name — as when Gerber sued a company selling children’s apparel under the name “oneZ” — litigation is both appropriate and necessary. The target is the commercial actor, not the parent describing their baby’s clothes. That distinction is both strategic and legally correct.
- Media and content creator outreach. Gerber communicates directly with journalists, bloggers, and content creators about proper usage — the same approach Xerox took with print editors. Generic use in published media is among the fastest paths to legal genericness. Addressing it editorially is cheaper than litigating it later.
The result? Despite widespread generic use in consumer speech, ONESIES® has maintained its registration. Gerber claims 95% brand name recognition. That figure is the product of the brand standards framework, the platform enforcement infrastructure, and litigation used as a backstop rather than a first response.
The two stories make the same point from different directions. Ore-Ida has protected its mark almost entirely through cultural relevance and brand investment. Gerber has built a documented, multi-channel enforcement system that deploys litigation only at the commercial tier. Both have succeeded. Neither relies on the courthouse as its primary line of defense.
Informal Agreements Create Real Problems
According to Patagonia, the parties communicated years before the lawsuit and reached an understanding about how the Pattie Gonia name could be used. Patagonia argues that later actions — selling branded apparel and filing federal trademark applications — went beyond what was agreed. Pattie Gonia’s position is that any 2022 communications were narrow in scope and did not constitute a binding agreement governing her commercial activities.
This disagreement is now central to the litigation, and it is exactly the kind of dispute a well-drafted letter agreement would have prevented. When IP rights are informally shared, licensed, or limited by mutual understanding, the terms should be in writing: what is permitted, what is not, for how long, and what happens if circumstances change.
If you reach any understanding with another party about use of your brand identity — however friendly the relationship — document it. IP disputes are almost always harder to resolve once trust has broken down.
Consumer Confusion Is the Central Legal Question — and It’s Not Always Obvious
In trademark law, the core question is whether consumers are likely to be confused about the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of competing goods or services. Courts weigh the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the goods and services, the strength of the senior mark, evidence of actual confusion, and other factors.
Patagonia frames its case straightforwardly: a phonetically similar name, used on overlapping goods by someone who agreed not to do exactly that. Pattie Gonia’s position is that her name is a drag persona — a pun on a geographic region, not an attempt to trade on Patagonia’s goodwill — and that consumers understand the difference between a multinational outdoor gear company and an activist drag performer. There are meaningful (and expensive) legal argument on both side.
The USPTO’s Office Action
In February 2026, the USPTO issued an Office Action on Pattie Gonia’s trademark application (Serial No. 99/404,728). The examining attorney did not raise a Section 2(d) bar — meaning the USPTO’s own search did not identify PATAGONIA as a mark likely to cause confusion with PATTIE GONIA across the filed classes. The only issue raised was procedural: the living individual consent requirement under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c), which requires the applicant to confirm that “Pattie Gonia” identifies a living individual and provide written consent. Since Wyn Wiley controls the applicant entity and is herself the person in question, this is a formality. The application will advance to publication, where Patagonia will almost certainly file an opposition with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
The absence of a Section 2(d) refusal is not dispositive — the examiner did not have the benefit of adversarial briefing, and the TTAB proceeding will be more rigorous. But it is meaningful: a trained trademark examiner, reviewing the application in context, did not find the marks confusingly similar.
The Geographic Name Question
PATAGONIA is the name of a real geographic region in southern Argentina and Chile. Geographically descriptive marks are not inherently protectable under trademark law — they require proof of acquired distinctiveness before they can be registered and enforced.
Patagonia, Inc. has unquestionably acquired that distinctiveness after fifty years of use. For virtually all American consumers, “Patagonia” means a fleece jacket before it means a place on the map. But the geographic origin of the name does constrain how broadly the company can assert rights. A mark built on a place name cannot monopolize all commercial use of that word — or its phonetic derivatives — across every industry and context.
PATTIE GONIA is not PATAGONIA. It is a drag name — a pun that plays on the sound of a geographic word while making no claim to the outdoor apparel market. Whether that phonetic resemblance crosses into actionable infringement, given the specific goods and services at issue, is a close question that only a court or the TTAB can resolve.
Strong Brands Must Enforce Their Rights — Thoughtfully
Patagonia has legitimate legal interests to protect. A trademark owner who tolerates confusingly similar uses — especially when those uses expand into the same commercial space — weakens its ability to enforce the mark in future disputes. When Pattie Gonia moved from performance into branded apparel sales and federal trademark filings covering goods overlapping with Patagonia’s core business, the legal calculus changed.
Patagonia’s public position has been measured:
“We want Pattie to have a long and successful career … but in a way that respects Patagonia’s intellectual property.”
That framing — enforcement as legal necessity rather than ideology — is the right one for any brand in this position. IP enforcement is a strategic business decision tied to the long-term integrity of a valuable asset. It does not require hostility toward the other party.
It also does not require going straight to federal court. The gap between doing nothing and filing a lawsuit is wide, and there are many steps in between.
Private Mediation: A Strategic Tool, Not Just a Last Resort
Private mediation is one of the most underused tools in IP disputes. Litigation is expensive, slow, public, and adversarial — and it rarely produces outcomes that satisfy either party on the dimensions that matter most. Mediation works differently: a neutral third party facilitates a confidential, structured conversation aimed at a negotiated resolution. The mediator does not decide the case. The parties do. And because the process is confidential, neither side is locked into public positions.
For trademark owners specifically, mediation is not just an escape hatch when litigation becomes unpleasant. It is a tool for managing the long-term health of a mark. Unresolved conflicts leave uncertainty in the marketplace — about who has what rights, under what conditions — and that uncertainty makes it harder to license, enforce, or expand a brand. A well-negotiated resolution, even one involving compromise, is almost always better for long-term mark value than years of litigation ending in a judgment neither party fully controls.
In a dispute like this one, the benefits are concrete:
- Both parties have strong reputational interests in how this story ends. Mediation allows them to reach a resolution without a court record that becomes a press release.
- A mediated settlement can include terms a court cannot order — revenue sharing, co-branding arrangements, defined licensing parameters, or agreed public statements.
- Speed and cost. Complex mediations typically resolve in days or weeks, not years, at a fraction of federal litigation costs.
- Relationship preservation. Patagonia and Pattie Gonia share an audience and a cause. A negotiated resolution is far more likely to leave the relationship intact than a court judgment.
- Risk management. Both parties face real downside risk in litigation — Pattie Gonia from an adverse injunction, Patagonia from an adverse verdict in a case with significant public sympathy on the other side.
- Long-term mark clarity. A settlement that defines what Pattie Gonia can do, under what conditions and in what markets, gives Patagonia a documented, enforceable framework — more useful to the mark’s long-term health than a court order that may leave ambiguities unresolved.
The parties communicated for years before this lawsuit. Earlier mediation, before positions hardened, might have produced a framework that made the lawsuit unnecessary. It is not too late to explore it now.
Creators and Entrepreneurs: Do Your Homework Before You Build
For artists, influencers, and entrepreneurs who build brands around memorable identities, this dispute is a reminder that creative expression and commercial branding operate under different rules. A stage name or activist identity may begin as pure expression — but once it generates merchandise revenue, trademark filings, and brand partnerships, it is in the commercial marketplace, and trademark law applies.
That means the same due diligence that applies to any business launch applies here: a clearance search, a review of existing registrations in relevant classes, and a realistic assessment of whether the chosen name could conflict with established marks. A similar name does not automatically mean infringement — as this case demonstrates, the analysis is nuanced. But it does mean conflicts should be identified early, before they become expensive.
Conclusion
The Patagonia–Pattie Gonia lawsuit does not have a clear villain. Patagonia has real trademark rights and a legitimate obligation to enforce them. Pattie Gonia has credible counterarguments that her mark is not confusingly similar, that any prior agreement was limited in scope, and that the USPTO’s own examination supports her position. The case is hard, even for trademark lawyers — which is exactly what makes it instructive.
What is clear is that better outcomes were available at every earlier stage: a formalized agreement when the parties first communicated, a trademark strategy built with legal guidance from the start, and a mediated resolution before the conflict went public. None of those required a lawsuit.
At Romano Law, our intellectual property attorneys work with businesses and creators at every stage of brand development — from clearance searches and federal registration to licensing, enforcement, and infringement defense. We also counsel clients on the full range of mark-protection strategies: usage practices, brand investment, licensing structures, and dispute resolution. Our goal is to help you build brand equity that is both commercially valuable and legally durable.
If you are launching a brand, expanding into merchandise, navigating a potential conflict, or facing a dispute that has reached an impasse, we can help. Contact Romano Law to schedule a consultation.
Contributions to this blog by Kennedy McKinney.
