Outdoor clothing giant Patagonia has responded publicly after facing backlash over its trademark lawsuit against drag queen and environmental activist Pattie Gonia.
On Monday, the California-based company shared a statement addressing the legal action it filed earlier this year to “protect our trademarks”.
“We wish this lawsuit had not been necessary and we want to acknowledge any hurt it has caused, especially in the LGBTQ+ community,” Patagonia posted on Instagram.
Know the news with the 7NEWS app: Download today
In January the outdoor apparel company, which takes its name from the geographical region in South America, launched a trademark infringement lawsuit against Pattie Gonia (real name Wyn Wiley).
The suit, filed in the Californian district court, accused the Oregon-based drag queen of breaching a 2022 agreement that restricted the use of branding and designs that were “substantially similar” to Patagonia’s logo.
The company, which describes itself as a sustainable brand that has contributed millions of dollars to environmental organisations, claims Pattie Gonia compromised its trademark by creating “a nearly-identical copy” of its logo.
Patagonia is now seeking $US1 in damages, plus legal fees.
“Patagonia has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed,” the suit alleged.
“No amount of money damages can adequately compensate Patagonia if it loses the ability to control its marks.”
According to the lawsuit, Patagonia took action after Pattie Gonia filed a trademark application in September to use the drag queen’s brand to sell clothing and promote environmental activism.
“While we wish we didn’t have to do this — and actively engaged with Pattie for several years to avoid this – it has become necessary to protect the brand we have spent the last 50 years building,” the company said in January.
Last week, Pattie Gonia responded publicly to the lawsuit for the first time, posting a video on Instagram and sharing a letter sent to Patagonia’s board of directors asking the company to drop the legal action.
Pattie Gonia and their community has raised millions of dollars for environmental organisations.
They urged Patagonia to abandon the lawsuit, arguing it was an attempt by a major corporation to “erase an activist”.
“This is a betrayal of Patagonia’s core mission. Because if they’re ‘in business to save the home planet’, why are they suing a climate activist?” Pattie Gonia said.
“Over the last four months since the lawsuit was filed, I have stayed silent and worked every channel I had to resolve this without going to court.
“But in the end, I had two choices. The erasure of my name, my advocacy, my community, and everyone I employ. Or fight for myself and fight for us.”
The drag queen acknowledged some merchandise involved “playful parody” of Patagonia but denied ever using the company’s branding, logo or font.
“Drag is built on parody, puns and jokes,” they added.
On Monday, Patagonia issued a statement in response to the growing debate surrounding the lawsuit.
“There’s a lot going around about the lawsuit we filed in January to protect our trademarks, and we owe you an update,” the company said.
“We wish this lawsuit had not been necessary, and we want to acknowledge any hurt it has caused, especially in the LGBTQ+ community.
“We don’t want to argue trademark law on social media. Importantly, we continue to want to resolve this.
“As we have said to Pattie Gonia, we can do that if they: Withdraw all trademark applications, stop using our logos, stop selling and promoting apparel and other products as Pattie Gonia.
“If we can agree on this, we can work out everything else, and Pattie Gonia could continue as a performer and activist.
“We share common ground with them, including the goal of saving our home planet and creating a more inclusive outdoors.”
Trademark attorney Josh Gerben said Pattie Gonia’s brand moved beyond parody and into potential trademark infringement when the trademark application was filed.
“Where you cross the line is when you start to sell your own branded merchandise using the Pattie Gonia name,” he said.
“As the company, you’re saying, ‘Well, wait a second, this is now no longer a parody, you’re actually now making this a brand in and of itself, and that violates our rights.”
– With NBC
