Patagonia vs. Pattie Gonia: Trademark Questions Behind a Viral Dispute

The trademark dispute between outdoor giant Patagonia and environmental activist and drag artist Pattie Gonia has made headlines across the globe. Without commenting on the merits of the pending US proceedings, the case has triggered a wave of genuinely interesting trademark questions in the public conversation. In this article, we take a closer look at some of those issues through a European lens.

Three questions that keep coming up:

• “She is not selling clothes, so why does this even matter?”
• “Patagonia is a geographical region, so how can they own that name?”
• “Is this not just parody or artistic expression?”

Background

A trade mark owner has two tools: an opposition against a younger trademark application (an administrative procedure, for example, before the USPTO or the EUIPO, depending on where the trademark has been filed) and infringement proceedings before national courts (e.g. in California or in Sweden), which is the route to injunctions, damages, and contractual breach claims where an agreement exists. These can run in parallel.

The media reports that Patagonia sued Entrepreneur Enterprises (the company of the artist behind the Pattie Gonia persona) in California in January 2026. At the USPTO (the US Federal authority for, among other things, trademark rights), Entrepreneur Enterprises filed a trademark application for Pattie Gonia on 21 September 2025. This application cannot yet be opposed as it is still under examination.

Question 1. “She is not selling clothes, so why does this even matter?”

Two answers, operating independently.

Likelihood of confusion: would the average consumer, attentive but imperfect in memory, be confused about who is behind the product or service? The analysis covers sign similarity and overlap in goods and services.

The trademark application for Pattie Gonia covers, among other things, clothing (Class 25) and entertainment services (Class 41). Patagonia holds earlier registrations for PATAGONIA covering both clothing and education and entertainment services.

Reputation goes further: no confusion needs to be proven at all. It is enough to show that the later mark takes unfair advantage of, or causes detriment to, the earlier mark’s distinctive character or repute, across all classes of goods and services. Whether or not there is direct competition, this protection casts a wide net.

So it matters on two levels: first, because the goods and services covered by the trademark application are compared directly with those of the earlier mark; and second, where reputation is invoked, the similarity of goods and services becomes less relevant.

Question 2. “Patagonia is a geographical region, so how can they own that name?”

There are rules barring registration of purely descriptive geographical signs. The policy is to keep such terms free for all traders. In the EU, the analysis is always sector-specific. What matters is whether the relevant public in that particular market actually associates the place name with those specific goods or services.

In this case, however, PATAGONIA is already a registered trademark, meaning it has cleared the bar for registrability: the relevant authorities have accepted it as sufficiently distinctive. This argument may be one factor in the overall analysis, but it is unlikely to be decisive on its own.

Question 3. “Is this not just parody or artistic expression?”

The most nuanced question, and one where the answer depends critically on the forum.

In infringement proceedings before a court, the balancing mechanism for reputed marks is “due cause” under Article 9(2)(c) EUTMR. The Advocate General’s Opinion in Inter IKEA Systems (C-298/23, November 2025) confirms this requires a case-by-case assessment: does the use contribute to a genuine debate about the mark or its proprietor, or does it ride in the wake of a reputed mark for commercial gain? The former may qualify; the latter is unlikely to.

In an opposition before the EUIPO, however, where two trademarks are compared against each other, there is no room for this argument at all. The EUIPO compares the trademarks at hand. Expressive intent is not part of that equation. The parody or artistic expression argument may effectively arise when infringement is litigated in court.

This area is also not fully harmonised at the EU level. Where use is not primarily as a badge of trade origin, national law and practice remain decisive, and courts across Member States may reach different conclusions.

Stage name or registered as a trademark

Does this play a role? In principle: yes, and significantly so. A trademark application covering clothing, events, and branded content is a formal claim to commercial exclusivity. That step — the application to register — is typically what brings the full weight of trademark law into play.

In practice, though, the line is blurry. Artists build audiences, sell merchandise, headline events, and license their image, all under their stage name, and all in ways that function commercially as a registered commercial identity, particularly in entertainment. Where EU law and national European laws draw that line, and how consistently it can be drawn, is one of the more genuinely difficult questions in modern trademark jurisprudence.