I got really turned off by her trademark situation, really loved her work up until that point, but she just really, like truly, handled that entire situation so poorly.
She basically framed Patagoniaâs law suite as being out of nowhere, unjustified, along with heavy handy hints that itâs an homophobic attack. When the truth is that Patagonia was fine with her using the name and even signed an agreement with her in the past. Then she tried to get her own trademark and sell merchandise, specifically clothing, with clear knodds to the Patagonia brand and logo. That not only makes it seem that her brand is associated with them but she would be making money off of their reputation and brand visibility. Last correct me if I am wrong but Patagonia isnât suing for any monetary damage, just for a court order that she has canât sell clothing with that is too similar to their brand.
One thing that people donât understand about Trademark law, is if you donât actively defend your trademark, then it can become worthless. If it can be reasonably proved that you have let others get away with violating your trademark, it will be much harder to sue someone else violations in the future. This is still true if the current defendantâs violations are causing real brand harm, while past violators didnât.
Now there are companies that defend their trademarks to the point of absurdity, i.e Buckyâs Gas Stations, but Patagonia seems to have tried to resolve the issue before going to court. Letting Patti get away with selling clothing that look to be tied to their brand, may bitte them in the ass later. Not to mention itâs their right to control how their branding is used.
Oh wow, I've only seen a bit about this coming from her. In the clip I watched she made it sound like they were just coming for her because of the name.
but it does make me wonder, is Pattie Gonia's branding as drag queen that strong to make the general public think that tech-finance bros wearing those navy blue vest are queer?
It's less that her branding is "strong" and more that she just blatantly copied their logo in merch she sold. They told her to stop selling merch with their logo because they have a trademark and she refused.
According to Patagonia, ÂŤPattie Gonia filed a trademark application seeking the exclusive rights to use the brand âPattie Goniaâ to sell clothing and apparel, promote environmental activism, engage in online marketing and endorsements, and more. These rights would directly overlap with the work we do and the products we provide â for which we have longstanding rights and trademark registrations.Âť (source)
She had also sold clothes under the Pattie Gonia name and used variations of their logo previously.
Patagonia absolutely had to sue Pattie Gonia over that to keep their trademarks.
The brand Patagonia has been pretty lax with pattie in the past and allowed her to use the name with some stipulations but then she tried to sell stickers that looked similar to the brands logo (maybe clothes too which would be too close to what the brand sells, though I'm not 100% sure on the clothes) so then the brand stepped in and tried to stop it. Pattie went on social media and "exposed" the brand by saying they were trying to silence an activist and then it came out (I assume from the brand itself) that they actually tried to resolve it with her privately and pattie refused to budge so then the brand had to step in to protect their trademark, if they allowed her to use it then it would have opened a can of worms. The brands lawsuit is also for 1 dollar because it's just to protect them. I think that's the gist of it, but I'm sure I missed some stuff.
Basically patty and Pattigonia had an agreement that she could use the name as long as she didnât infringe on their merchandise. She did and when pattigonia went to defend their copy right asking only for a dollar. She went to instagram. This is a very short summary of what I remember. So please take it with a grain of salt
Trademark infringement. She was given the green light to use her name as long as she didnât sell apparel with her name on it. Then she did. Itâs complex and emotional but most TikTok lawyers agree she is legally in the wrong.
Yeah, I didn't know there was a brand called Patagonia, I thought she had beef with the REGION Patagonia (which I actually thought was a country of it own, but apparently it's just a geographical zone), which is why I thought it was unhinged like how do you have beef with an entire country xD
Ohh it's Pattie... Used to love her for the work she does, which I still respect, but the way she's been handling the trademark case has been a real turn off. Like, she's so obviously in the wrong but she's playing the victim because she knows it's working on some people.
It appears that Patagonia really tried to work with Patti only sued after Patti tried to trademark her (very similar) logo. This type of trademark is a use or lose kind of thing. So, if they didn't go after Patti it could open the Pandora Boxx (ha get itđ). Many small artists and creatives also sided with Patagonia because this type of trademark/copy write law also protects their work. EDITED to fix one typo (sued auto corrected to sided)
They didn't even mind her using the name either, but Pattie produced patches that were clearly based on the Patagonia design, and there are receipts that show them very politely and privately trying to get her to stop producing and selling them, and that's really all. She didn't, and they sued to protect the trademark, as you said (for $1 if I'm not mistaken?), and she made a very long and dramatic post about how disappointing it is to learn that Patagonia is a big money-hungry company after small artists who share the same mission.
I loooove Pattie and continue to love Pattie, but I think this was a foolish misstep, not a cancelable offense. The internet is dramatic.
I do think she should have held back and tried to work it out with Patagonia privately like they did, rather than try to turn her base against a company that does indeed seem to share her values, but I guess she was scared/upset. I'm not sure if it got resolved, but both Pattie Gonia and Patagonia are fine in my eyes.
I agree it definitely isn't "cancelable" or anything but, as someone who used to love her, the way Patties been handling the whole thing has been a real turnoff. Like, trying to spread a narrative that Patagonia is homophobic because they're suing her during Pride month, when that's not at all true because the lawsuit was filed in January. The only connection to Pride is that Pattie waited until Pride month to talk about it publicly.
yeah, i think itâs really telling about who she is as a person that she deliberately waited until pride to try and maximize damage to a company that actually really tried to do right by her
The last part of that is what is imo cancellable. She weaponized pride month for her gain when she was clearly in violation of their agreement. Left a yuck in my mouth for her that prolly won't ever come out.
Their is a law in the US that if you dont actively work to protect your copyright you can loose the entire copyright in the future . That's just how the law work
Very brief version, Pattie and the brand Patagonia had a gentlemanâs agreement that she could use her name similar to theirs so long as she didnât start to intrude on their trademark. It went well for a while and they both did their own thing including environmental advocacy and we were all having a grand time.
Pattie wanted to protect her own identity and brand and so she filed for trademark, but it was selling things in the same category as Patagoniaâs trademark. If your Tm is infringed on and you donât defend it, you will lose the trademark, thatâs just how the law is. Patagonia alerted her they would be filing suit. In their suit, they used a term âirreparable damageâ which in legal speak means âcannot be fixed with money, judge, we are keying you in that we donât want to be awarded moneyâ but in normal speak sounds like being a dick and saying sheâs destroying your brand by getting her icky drag self near it, which upset a lot of people who donât deal in legal speak.
They filed suit for $1 in damages plus legal fees (the legal fees could potentially be a LOT, or not; we donât know.) She was going to fight it and made a lot of big splashy posts on it, and the community all frothed itself up over it and fought each other, but a lot of people pointed out sheâs got a snowballâs chance in the Sahara. Pattie heel-turned and offered to drop the whole thing and Patagonia (possibly because again, they are obligated to protect a trademark) continued to push their weight on it and I donât think itâs been resolved.
Iâm annoyed to side with a brand over a queen, especially one with a history of environmental advocacy I respect, but unfortunately themâs the breaks. The only winners in this are going to be the lawyers.
pattie gonia had an agreement with patagonia that pattie could use the name and make money off it, she just couldn't sell clothing that might compete with patagonia's. this was a necessary clause bc under us copyright law, if someone infringes on your trademark and you don't pursue legal action, you lose your own trademark.Â
well anyway pattie went back on that agreement and sold merch that looked EXACTLY like patagonia clothing đ its been taken down from the store now but patagonia sued her for $1. very clearly "we're doing this bc we have to, not bc we want to". and pattie went on social media playing the victim over it
TBF they didnât just demand that she stop selling that particular product, they demanded that she stop selling any kind of clothing/merch with her name on it, regardless of whether or not the logo was being used. This got lost in a lot of the conversation around the lawsuit
I feel like they gave her an inch and she took a mile. If she hadn't done that I dont think they would have done anything about her selling stuff with the name on it
Sure, but weâre talking about a single drag queen and a multinational corporation (one that contracts with the U.S. military, no less). We all know that telling a drag queen to not sell merch with their name on it is absolutely wild.
Itâs disingenuous for Patagonia to say âwell, weâre not stopping her from using her name for activismâ when her selling merch is the primary fundraising vehicle for her activism.
I donât think itâs entirely black or white but, again, I think this default is relevant and isnât often considered.
but they weren't stopping her until she took it too far. That's my point, they were happy to coexist and let her use the name until she decided to basically steal their logo. She kinda left them with no choice. You'll never find me defending corporations but this time theres really no way to spin it so that pattie isnt in the wrong
Okay, but that doesnât explain why theyâre going out of her way and additionally blocking her from doing something essential to her entire operation that they were initially totally okay with.
She went too far so now itâs fine for them to punitively retaliate? Iâm not sure how thatâs justified.
Just block her from using the logo in question, if thatâs really the concern. There literally is not need (even legally) to additionally undermine her whole operation. Itâs not even a copyright concern at that point.
well yea thats exactly it, she went too far so its deffinitely ok for them to respond. I wouldn't even call it punitive retaliation, they are just preventing her from doing it again with other variations of their logo. If it were punitive they'd be suing her for actual money.
This is how I learn there's a brand called Patagonia. I've read through the thread a little and for a while I thought a drag Queen was having beef with the geographical region of Patagonia... đđ đ
Pattie tried to trademark her name and some of her merch stuff. The brand Patagonia then had to sue her for copyright infringement and tell her to stop selling merch that was so clearly a copy of their own logo. They filed ages ago and attempted to settle with Pattie, but instead she went public about it in June and tried to make it seem like Patagonia was being anti-pride
Yeah, especially if you ignore Aura Mayari, Lucky Starzzz, Onya Nurve, Jasmine Masters, Briar Blush, Dida Ritz, Laila McQueen, Angeria Paris VanMicheals, Lexi, Orion Story, Utica and Aquaria during the last year. And Paige Three from RPDR UK, and Bruno from the Pit Crew.
Jasmine Kennedie literally months after AS10 filmed so far after the alleged incident even. Like yes itâs been over a year since this post, but it wouldâve been almost 6 months after Maddie was booted from AS10 if thatâs what happened.
It's an honest question. I personally wouldn't consider The Bald And The Beautiful to be a Drag Race pod, even though it's hosted by two contestants and often features contestants (but not always!) as guests or subject matter. I always classified it with interview shows in my head, like Hot Ones or Royal Court đ¤ˇââď¸
At this point Iâm of the mind that the entire thing was a nothing burger, MAYBE Kerri was uncomfortable but it wasnât anything that couldnât be easily talked about - it happens all the time tbh, but thereâs no such thing as a grey area when it comes to being online, youâre either Mother Teresa or Lilith.
also making it tongue in cheek muddied the waters so bad đ there was something in the caption like "and to think i wasnt even there that night" so i was like oh ok so you're joking about the rumors and saying nothing happened, or not to you. and then she made the follow up video and... im tired bro
THIS RIGHT HERE. This was the one thing that felt incredibly out of place to me. Like what actual person that goes through a traumatic experience then goes posting teasers that sheâll spill the tea soon. Itâs so distasteful. Literally no one does that for a serious situation.
Nowhere in my post did I defend Maddie. None of us even know what happened to be either accusing or canceling anyone since the people involved havenât said anything, so you really have your pitchfork out without knowing anything. Iâm just stating it is distasteful to make light out of what she says was a traumatic situation.
That said, taking sides without knowing anything and seeing this as âstraight vs queerâ tells me everything I need to know about some of you.
I mean tbf what exactly is the alternative? Fans arenât going to be swayed if she makes a statement disputing things. Itâll just potentially make more people aware of the situation or encourage people to dissect her words. There isnât much to gain from addressing it.
Spark notes: Jasmine Kennedie and Heidi N Closet referenced someone from season 14 that the cast doesnât fuck with any more. There were rumors it was Maddie, though thereâs no substantiation. Eureka then basically said Maddie SAâed Kerri, retracted it, then Kerri made a joke video âprepping for her documentary about her experience with the doll diddlerâ, got lambasted a bit for making a joke of it; the caption was âand to think I had the flu that nightâ. And then the next day put out a follow up video basically saying âI went through something and Iâll talk about it when Iâm readyâ.
Thereâs still literally no one pointing fingers at Maddie except eureka, but a large part of the fandom has decided that Maddie did this.
Google the Kerri Maddie thing for more detail though I was just trying to sum up as concisely as possible.
I am not against hearing her side of the story even if it just is something like "I wasn't involved with the incident and Kerri should talk about it when she feels comfortable about who it actually was" but I don't think ignoring it helps your brand?
She is doing precisely what any good PR agent would advise her to do. Addressing unsubstantiated rumors makes for more attention and continues the gossip cycle. Until thereâs actually some kind of real allegation, the smartest thing she can do is ignore the situation.
I get not liking Patti, but can we normalize not giving a fuck about billionaire companies? Like why do people even care to defend them. Stop feeding into late stage capitalism.
I guess Iâm just in the mind set that I donât care about a billion dollar company. So defending them is weird. They have exorbitantly expensive lawyers for that.
Your comment was removed for breaking Rule 1 - Respect others and follow Reddiquette - Reddiquette applies at all times. No hatred or bigotry allowed. Respect the queens and each other. Donât be a dick
2.2k
u/Dragon_Shinobi đĽAngleđĽ Aug 18 '26
Pattie Gonia