Patagonia shares list of demands in drag queen Pattie Gonia lawsuit as they acknowledge ‘hurt caused’
Patagonia has shared a list of demands in its lawsuit against Pattie Gonia (Getty Images)
Outdoor brand Patagonia has taken their lawsuit against drag queen Pattie Gonia to social media, sharing a list of demands for the climate activist.
The clothing brand sued Pattie Gonia, real name Wyn Wiley, in January of this year alleging trademark infringement.
Wiley, who has raised around $4million for climate non-profits, last week claimed that the sportswear brand was “trying to erase an activist”.
Patagonia released a public statement on Instagram addressing the lawsuit, bringing it to social media as Wiley had.
It read: “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.”
The company then shared its list of demands, which included: “Withdraw all trademark applications. Stop using our logos. Stop selling and promoting apparel and other products as Pattie Gonia.”
‘We share common ground with them’
It finished: “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.”
In January, Patagonia announced its lawsuit, saying they had “actively engaged with Pattie for several years to avoid this”, however they deemed it “necessary to protect the brand we have spent the last 50 years building”.
Their original press release said that Pattie started selling “Pattie Gonia” merchandise in late 2024, including using versions of their logo, despite asking the performer to stick with a previously decided agreement.
It said that, in September 2025, Pattie filed a trademark application for exclusive rights to use the brand “Pattie Gonia” to sell clothing and apparel, promote environmental activism, engage in online marketing and endorsements, as well as others.
“These rights would directly overlap with the work we do and the products we provide – for which we have longstanding rights and trademark registrations.”
It continued: “We cannot selectively choose to enforce our rights based on whether we agree with a particular point of view.”
The brand provided an update on 27 May, saying: “This matter is not about seeking financial gain, nor is it about challenging anyone’s identity or right to advocacy, protest, or creative expression. The last thing we wanted was a legal fight with someone who shares out values, but we must protect our business and employees.”
The company is suing for a nominal $1 plus legal fees.
Share your thoughts! Let us know in the comments below, and remember to keep the conversation respectful.
