A public settlement offer from climate activist and drag performer Pattie Gonia and a response from Patagonia hours later have moved one of the outdoor industry’s most closely watched legal disputes into a new phase.
On Sunday, May 31, Pattie Gonia, whose legal name is Wyn Wiley, said they would withdraw the disputed trademark application at the center of Patagonia’s lawsuit if the company agreed to drop the case. “Now you’re saying the issue is the trademark. I’m willing to drop the trademark, and if I do that, you drop the lawsuit,” Wiley said in a video posted to Instagram. “I’m handing you what you’re asking for. So it’s your move, Patagonia.”
About 14 hours later, Patagonia issued a public statement acknowledging the controversy and expressing a desire to resolve the dispute. “We wish this lawsuit had not been necessary, and we want to acknowledge any hurt it has caused, especially in the LGBTQ+ community,” the company wrote. “Importantly, we continue to want to resolve this.”
Where the Two Sides Differ
While Wiley offered to withdraw the trademark application, Patagonia’s proposed resolution goes further. The company said settlement would require Pattie Gonia to:
- Withdraw all trademark applications
- Stop using Patagonia’s 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,” Patagonia wrote. The difference is significant. Wiley’s proposal addresses the trademark application itself, while Patagonia is also seeking changes to branding and merchandise sales.
Disagreement Over What Happened
Wiley also challenged Patagonia’s account of events leading up to the lawsuit. According to Wiley, Patagonia never attempted to discuss the trademark application before filing suit in federal court. “The first time we heard from Patagonia after filing our trademark application was four months later when their internal lawyer emailed to say that Patagonia had filed the lawsuit against me for trademark infringement,” Wiley said.
Patagonia has previously stated in court filings that the parties had discussed trademark-related concerns during earlier conversations, including discussions surrounding a proposed Hydro Flask collaboration in 2022. The conflicting accounts have become a central issue in the increasingly public dispute.
The Trademark Question
In the video, Wiley also noted that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initially found the Pattie Gonia trademark application “not confusingly similar” to Patagonia’s trademarks.
However, trademark applications that pass an initial USPTO review can still be challenged by third parties, which is effectively what Patagonia is attempting to do through its lawsuit.
Patagonia argues that Pattie Gonia’s commercial activities, including merchandise sales and trademark registrations, overlap with categories covered by Patagonia’s own trademarks and could create consumer confusion.
What Happens Next
The exchange marks the clearest sign yet that both sides may be interested in avoiding a lengthy court battle.
Patagonia stated that it shares “common ground” with Pattie Gonia, including environmental protection and creating a more inclusive outdoors. Wiley has similarly argued that their activism aligns closely with the values Patagonia has promoted for decades. Whether the parties can bridge the gap between Wiley’s offer and Patagonia’s broader demands remains to be seen.
