Patagonia is suing Pattie Gonia, a drag queen performer with an environmental message

DENVER — Days before the beginning of Pride Month in June, a glamorous drag queen with long, wavy red hair, a matching mustache and carabiner earrings stared into a camera and levied a strong accusation against a famous sustainable outdoors apparel brand: “This is a corporation trying to erase an activist.”

The drag queen, Pattie Gonia, said in the video she was breaking her silence on a lawsuit filed against her by Patagonia, a brand blazed across the chests of adventure athletes and midtown Manhattan investment bankers alike. The apparel company is suing her for $1 for alleged trademark infringement, although experts say legal fees could easily surpass $1 million.

A maelstrom of social media posts quickly followed, as drag has a long history of parodying famous names. Many expressed indignation that a climate-friendly clothing brand would appear to go after a beloved climate activist. Others chided Pattie Gonia for leveling the accusation against Patagonia, a company considered by many as a leader in sustainability, without painting a full picture of the case.

Why Patagonia is suing Pattie Gonia

Pattie Gonia, whose given name is Wyn Wiley, is a drag queen based in Bend, Oregon. She is known for her climate activism and has a combined following of nearly 3 million people on TikTok and Instagram. She first went viral in 2018 after posting a clip wearing high heels while camping.

She makes short, educational videos about climate change, created and tours with the “Save Her! Environmental Drag Show,” and is known for mobilizing climate activists and raising money for climate organizations.

Patagonia says that Pattie Gonia infringed on its trademark by selling clothing and products under the “Pattie Gonia” name, which they say confuses consumers.

“There doesn’t have to be actual consumer confusion to win a trademark infringement suit. If consumers are likely to be confused, that is sufficient,” said Tim Holbrook, an intellectual property professor at the University of Denver.

The company filed the complaint, which included screenshots of consumer confusion, on Jan. 21. Pattie Gonia announced, and criticized, the lawsuit on May 27. This initially sparked confusion, with many believing Patagonia had filed the complaint around Pride Month.

Pattie Gonia declined to say whether the timing of her announcement was intentional.

In September 2025, she filed a trademark application for the “Pattie Gonia” name to, among other things, sell apparel. Several months later, Patagonia sued.

According to the complaint, the clothing company reached out in 2022 after hearing about a fundraising collaboration between the performer and Hydroflask, an outdoors accessory brand. On a phone call, it asked the performer not to sell products with the Patagonia logo, font or the name “Pattie Gonia,” and outlined the points over email.

The company then followed up over email three years later when Pattie Gonia began selling clothing with her name on it. After a brief exchange, the clothing brand asked the performer to meet and discuss “different understandings of where we left things related to Patagonia’s trademarks when this last came up.”

The performer called the complaint one-sided and said it “misrepresented not only the facts but also my personal integrity.”

It’s common for companies to sue to stop trademark filings

McDonald’s sued a dental practice with the name “McDental.” Starbucks sued “Sambucks,” an Oregon-based coffee house. Even Patagonia has fought off brand copycats “Catagonia,” “Fratagonia” and others, according to the complaint.

It’s a high bar to clear to trademark something similar to an existing brand, said Carmel Imani, a trademark lawyer who represents small creators and brands.

“I get rejections for trademarks for my clients that are way less similar than these brand names,” she said about Pattie Gonia and Patagonia.

In trademark law, a complaint is about far more than a singular dispute — it’s about the big picture of whether a brand will be protected from future disputes by others, said Lara Pearson, trademark attorney with Brand Geek.

By allowing similar brands with similar goods and services, “Are we setting a precedent that we’re not going to be able to walk back from later?” she said.

The backlash has been swift

After Pattie Gonia alleged erasure, supporters and allies quickly spoke up, asking how such a reputable company could sue a queer climate activist, some going as far as donating Patagonia clothing.

The day after Pattie Gonia’s announcement, supporter Jim Gregory posted a video to TikTok outside of a Goodwill donation center where he said he was dropping off his Patagonia hat.

“I think that you just completely wrecked your company, at least from my demographic, the LGBTQ demographic,” Gregory said to the camera.

Cleo Schroer, a Brooklyn-based researcher on queer politics and culture who has also been posting videos about the case, said she initially felt like Patagonia was in the wrong, but that something didn’t sit right. Then she read the complaint.

“Saying that Patagonia was trying to silence a drag queen or a queer activist … it just felt inaccurate,” she said.

Patagonia took its name from the region

Patagonia is a diverse region in southern Chile and Argentina, with glaciers, mountains and fjords to the west, stretching into steppe and desert toward the east. It has long been occupied by Indigenous peoples, including the Mapuche, Tehuelche and others.

Founder Yvon Chouinard decided the name would be perfect for an apparel brand targeting a range of outdoors enthusiasts. After more than a decade of selling clothes as “Patagonia,” the company filed for and was granted the trademark.

“You can certainly protect a name even if it’s the name of a geographic region or location,” said trademark attorney Josh Gerben. “There’s Chevy Tahoe, GMC Denali, Arizona Tea Company and many more,” he explained. It’s nuanced, but how well known the region is at the time of the trademark is a factor the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would weigh, he said.

Since 1973, the apparel brand has built a profitable business off of Patagonia, now a sought-after destination for outdoors enthusiasts.

Some progress has been made toward resolving the dispute

If Pattie Gonia’s application is eventually approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patagonia would be able to file an opposition, which could take years to resolve, Gerben said. But it’s a moot point.

“The lawsuit will control the situation,” he said. “If Patagonia wins the lawsuit, the Federal Court can tell the USPTO to deny the application.”

Still, both sides have made small steps toward the middle, Imani observed. Pattie Gonia said she would drop the trademark application if Patagonia drops the suit. The clothing brand issued a statement that recognized “any hurt (the lawsuit) has caused, especially in the LBGTQ+ community,” but said the suit could only be dropped if Pattie Gonia stops using their logo, font and her name in “selling and promoting apparel and other products.”

Pattie Gonia agreed to the first two but not the third. At some point, her website went from www.pattiegoniamerch.com to www.pattiemerch.com, a change the performer did not answer questions about.

“We are very open and want to find a resolution,” said Corley Kenna, chief impact and communications officer for Patagonia, but did not offer details.

The best resolution, said Gerben, would be to avoid court and reach an agreement.

“It’s always more ideal because it provides certainty to both parties. And you’re not going in front of a jury wondering who’s gonna win,” he said.