1 hr. ago
A high-profile lawsuit between two well-known entities is never just tried in a courthouse; it's also tried in the court of public opinion. And that's exactly what's happening with the Pattie Gonia vs. Patagonia copyright infringement case. The apparel company sued the drag queen in January after she applied for a trademark to sell merchandise and promote her activism and online marketing. This, the company alleges in a statement posted on its website, violated a previously held agreement between the two parties — though the drag queen claims there was no agreement.
Patagonia maintained it did not want to sue Pattie Gonia, but needed to do so to protect its trademark and itself from bad actors. Initially, when the lawsuit was filed, the drag queen remained silent. However, that silence was broken last week, when she uploaded a video to Instagram and a written statement, claiming that the brand is trying to "erase an activist." At first, Pattie had the court of public opinion on her side, especially in this fraught political landscape where queer and nonbinary people's rights are at risk, and drag queens are used as scapegoats.
The two parties have shared their stipulations for dropping the lawsuit on social media: Pattie says that she would drop her pursuit of a trademark if the brand agrees to drop the lawsuit. Meanwhile, the brand says it will drop the lawsuit if she drops all trademark applications, ceases using its logos, and stops selling and promoting apparel and other products under the name Pattie Gonia.
As the two parties reach a stalemate, Out spoke with three lawyers who specialize in trademark and intellectual property law about what is going on in this case, who has greater legal standing, and what the path forward is for both Pattie Gonia and Patagonia.
Alexandra J. Roberts is a professor of law and media at Northeastern University and a leading voice in intellectual property and social media, with expertise in trademark law. She largely sides with Pattie because she feels the brand has a much higher bar to clear, given the claims in the lawsuit.
Patagonia maintained it did not want to sue Pattie Gonia, but needed to do so to protect its trademark and itself from bad actors. Initially, when the lawsuit was filed, the drag queen remained silent. However, that silence was broken last week, when she uploaded a video to Instagram and a written statement, claiming that the brand is trying to "erase an activist." At first, Pattie had the court of public opinion on her side, especially in this fraught political landscape where queer and nonbinary people's rights are at risk, and drag queens are used as scapegoats.
The two parties have shared their stipulations for dropping the lawsuit on social media: Pattie says that she would drop her pursuit of a trademark if the brand agrees to drop the lawsuit. Meanwhile, the brand says it will drop the lawsuit if she drops all trademark applications, ceases using its logos, and stops selling and promoting apparel and other products under the name Pattie Gonia.
As the two parties reach a stalemate, Out spoke with three lawyers who specialize in trademark and intellectual property law about what is going on in this case, who has greater legal standing, and what the path forward is for both Pattie Gonia and Patagonia.
Alexandra J. Roberts is a professor of law and media at Northeastern University and a leading voice in intellectual property and social media, with expertise in trademark law. She largely sides with Pattie because she feels the brand has a much higher bar to clear, given the claims in the lawsuit.
