Is Patagonia Erasing Pattie Gonia?
Last updated:
Pattie Gonia is Wyn Wiley — a queer outdoor entertainer, drag performer, and environmental activist based in Colorado. They have built a following of hundreds of thousands across social media by combining drag performance with backcountry outdoor adventure, collaborating with major outdoor brands, and advocating for LGBTQ+ inclusion in outdoor spaces. "Pattie Gonia" is not a corporate entity or a competing apparel brand. It is a performer's stage name.
On January 21, 2026, Patagonia, Inc. filed a federal lawsuit against Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc. (doing business as Pattie Gonia Productions) and Wyn Wiley in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division, Los Angeles). The case is docketed as Case 2:26-cv-00586. The complaint asserts six causes of action: federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, federal dilution, California statutory trademark infringement, California statutory dilution, and California common law infringement.
The central claim is that the stage name "Pattie Gonia" is confusingly similar to Patagonia's registered trademark and therefore constitutes infringement. Patagonia's legal theory is that consumers encountering "Pattie Gonia" content will mistakenly believe it is affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Patagonia, Inc.
The complaint was preceded by a cease and desist email in February 2025 and a follow-up in March 2025. Pattie Gonia responded to the first communication and disputed Patagonia's characterization of their prior relationship. They did not respond to the March follow-up. In September 2025, Pattie Gonia filed a federal trademark application for the "Pattie Gonia" name, which appears to have accelerated Patagonia's decision to file suit.
In early June 2026, Patagonia posted a public statement on Instagram acknowledging "any hurt it has caused, especially in the LGBTQ+ community" and offered to drop the lawsuit if Pattie Gonia agreed to three conditions: withdraw all trademark applications, stop using Patagonia's logos, and stop selling and promoting merchandise under the Pattie Gonia name. Patagonia said that if Pattie agreed, they "could continue as a performer and activist."
On June 2, 2026, Pattie Gonia publicly rejected the offer — "No deal, Patagonia" — agreeing to withdraw the trademark applications and stop using Patagonia's logos, but refusing the third condition. Pattie said barring merchandise and brand partnerships under the name would "erase my advocacy" by cutting off the funding that supports the community and environmental work. The suit therefore remains active and unresolved.
The case is assigned to the Central District of California federal court. The public docket is accessible via PACER. All developments will be reflected in the timeline below as they occur.
Pattie Gonia and Patagonia participate in a three-way meeting (also involving Hydroflask) and enter into an informal email agreement. The agreement, as described in later communications, involved some understanding about the scope of Pattie Gonia's activities and branding. Patagonia would later argue this constituted a license with conditions; Pattie Gonia disputes this characterization.
Pattie Gonia registers the domain pattiegoniamerch.com to sell branded merchandise. Patagonia later cites this in their complaint as evidence of trademark infringement and an expansion of commercial activity beyond what the 2022 agreement permitted.
Patagonia sends a cease and desist email to Pattie Gonia demanding they stop using the "Pattie Gonia" name commercially.
Pattie Gonia responds to the cease and desist and disputes Patagonia's characterization of both the name and the 2022 agreement.
Patagonia sends a follow-up communication. Pattie Gonia does not respond.
Pattie Gonia files a federal trademark application with the USPTO for the "Pattie Gonia" name. This action appears to have prompted Patagonia to escalate from cease and desist to litigation.
Patagonia, Inc. files suit in the Central District of California. Case 2:26-cv-00586. Six claims. The complaint requests, among other relief, a permanent injunction barring all commercial use of the "Pattie Gonia" name and asking the USPTO to refuse Pattie Gonia's trademark application.
Pattie Gonia publishes an open letter addressed to Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert, the Patagonia Board of Directors, and the Patagonia Purpose Trust Trustees. The letter states that Pattie Gonia has spent eight years building a community of more than 3 million people and a nonprofit that has raised $3.7 million for environmental causes, and that the company "sued me without warning in January." It says Pattie has pursued an amicable settlement from the outset and asks the company to "intervene and drop this lawsuit today." Read the full open letter.
Amid mounting public backlash, Patagonia posts a statement on Instagram acknowledging "any hurt it has caused, especially in the LGBTQ+ community," and offers to drop the lawsuit if Pattie Gonia agrees to three conditions: withdraw all trademark applications, stop using Patagonia's logos, and stop selling and promoting merchandise under the Pattie Gonia name. Patagonia states that if Pattie agrees, they "could continue as a performer and activist."
Pattie Gonia publicly declines the settlement, agreeing to withdraw the trademark applications and stop using Patagonia's logos, but refusing the third condition. Pattie says that barring merchandise and brand partnerships under the name would "erase my advocacy" by cutting off the funding that sustains the community and environmental work. The lawsuit remains active.
As of , the lawsuit remains active. No settlement, dismissal, or court ruling has been reported.
Here is what Patagonia's lawyers filed in federal court, in their own words. This is the public court record — Case 2:26-cv-00586, Central District of California.
Patagonia asks the court to permanently bar Pattie Gonia from offering any product or service under their own name. The Prayer for Judgment (¶8) requests that the defendants be "enjoined and restrained… permanently" from, among other things:
From the complaint, Prayer for Judgment ¶8(a):
"Manufacturing, producing, sourcing, importing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, advertising, or promoting any goods or services that display any words or symbols that so resemble the PATAGONIA trademarks as to be likely to cause confusion… including, without limitation, any product or service that bears the PATTIE GONIA trademark, or any other approximation of Patagonia's trademarks."
This is the heart of it. The injunction does not just target logos or merchandise — it reaches any product or service that bears the Pattie Gonia name. A drag performance, a speaking engagement, an advocacy campaign, or a fundraiser offered under the name "Pattie Gonia" is a service bearing that mark. If granted, the order would effectively shut down the Pattie Gonia enterprise and bar a queer environmental activist from operating publicly under the identity they have used for eight years. The complaint also asks the court to order the USPTO to refuse Pattie Gonia's pending trademark application (Serial No. 99/404,728).
Patagonia's complaint requests statutory damages of $1 — one dollar — in actual damages. The complaint is not primarily about money. It is about the injunction: the court order that would require Pattie Gonia to stop performing under their name.
This story moves fast and gets simplified in headlines. Here are the things people frequently get wrong, explained against how trademark law generally works. This is general information, not legal advice.
"They're only asking for $1, so the lawsuit isn't really that serious."
Why the $1 isn't the point: The dollar figure is the least consequential part of the complaint. The relief that actually matters is the permanent injunction — a court order that would bar Pattie Gonia from performing under their name. A nominal $1 damages request signals that the case is about control of the name, not about money. If anything, the small number can make the suit appear harmless while the injunction it seeks would end the performer's ability to use the name they built.
"How is Patagonia trying to erase an LGBTQ activist?"
Through the relief it asks for — regardless of intent. Patagonia may genuinely believe it is only stopping a trademark registration, not a person. But intent is not what a court enforces; the requested order is. The Prayer for Judgment (¶8(a)) asks the court to permanently bar "any product or service that bears the PATTIE GONIA trademark." A drag performance, a speaking engagement, an advocacy campaign, or a fundraiser offered under the name "Pattie Gonia" is a service bearing that mark. So the relief Patagonia seeks would, if granted, bar a well-known queer environmental activist from appearing publicly under the identity they have used for eight years. Whatever the company intends, that is what the filing asks for — which is why critics describe the suit as an attempt to erase that identity.
"There must also be a breach-of-contract case over the 2022 agreement."
Why there isn't: The complaint asserts six trademark and unfair-competition claims — none of them is breach of contract. An informal 2022 email understanding (sometimes described as a "gentlemen's agreement") generally would not, on its own, amount to a binding written contract with defined, enforceable terms. The absence of any contract claim in the filing is consistent with that. The 2022 communications appear in the lawsuit as background and context, not as the basis of a contract dispute, and no separate breach-of-contract suit is indicated by the public record.