Patagonia Inc. filed a lawsuit on March 18, 2025, against Marden’s, a discount retail chain in Maine, alleging trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution, and copyright infringement. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, claims that Marden’s has been selling counterfeit Patagonia-branded jackets featuring unauthorised reproductions of its trademarks and copyrighted logos.
Patagonia’s Brand History
Founded in 1973 by Yvon Chouinard, Patagonia has established itself as a leader in the outdoor apparel industry. The company is known not only for its high-quality products but also for its commitment to environmental sustainability and corporate responsibility. Patagonia’s P-6 logo, derived from the Fitz Roy mountain range, is a federally protected trademark, signifying the brand’s identity and reputation. Over the years, Patagonia has maintained a proactive approach in enforcing its intellectual property rights against counterfeiters and unauthorised sellers.
Patagonia’s Claims
Patagonia asserts the following legal claims:
- Marden’s engaged in trademark counterfeiting by selling products bearing identical or substantially indistinguishable marks from Patagonia’s federally registered trademarks.
- Marden’s unauthorised use of the PATAGONIA name and P-6 logo constitutes trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.
- The sale of counterfeit Patagonia products creates consumer confusion and misleads buyers into believing they are purchasing genuine Patagonia merchandise.
- Marden’s actions dilute the distinctiveness of Patagonia’s trademarks and harm its brand reputation.
- The counterfeit jackets contain unauthorised copies of Patagonia’s P-6 logo and P-6 Trout logo, leading to copyright infringement claims.
Legal Issues Surrounding Counterfeit Goods
In trademark infringement and counterfeiting cases, under the Lanham Act, Patagonia must demonstrate that Marden’s use of its mark is likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake, or deception. A critical element in counterfeiting cases is that liability is strict; the plaintiff does not need to show intent to deceive. This means that even if Marden’s did not intentionally aim to mislead consumers, it could still be held liable if the use of Patagonia’s trademarks causes confusion. For dilution claims, Patagonia must prove that its marks are well-known and that Marden’s use dilutes their distinctiveness, weakening the brand’s strong market position.
Patagonia also brings a copyright infringement claim, which requires showing that the design elements, specifically the P-6 logo and P-6 Trout logo, are protected by valid copyrights. Since these logos are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, Patagonia has the benefit of a presumption of validity. This presumption significantly strengthens Patagonia’s case, as Marden’s would need to provide substantial evidence to challenge the validity of these copyrights or claim that they have the right to use these protected designs.
In essence, Patagonia is relying on strict standards for trademark infringement and dilution claims, as well as the legal advantages offered by copyright registration, to support its case against Marden’s.
What Patagonia Seeks
Patagonia seeks comprehensive relief, including:
- A permanent injunction to stop Marden’s from selling counterfeit Patagonia products.
- Monetary damages, including treble damages for willful infringement.
- Statutory damages for copyright infringement, up to $150,000 per infringed work.
- Attorneys’ fees and legal costs.
- Seizure and destruction of counterfeit goods.
Can Retailers Be Held Liable?
This lawsuit raises important questions regarding retailer liability for counterfeit goods. Courts have held that retailers can be directly liable for selling counterfeit products, even if they are not the manufacturers. If Patagonia succeeds, Marden’s could face statutory damages, treble damages for wilful infringement, and a permanent injunction barring further sales of counterfeit Patagonia products.
Why This Case Matters
This case challenges the application of intellectual property laws in counterfeit disputes:
- Strict Liability in Counterfeiting Cases: Even unintentional sales of counterfeit goods can lead to legal liability.
- Enforcement of Famous Marks: The lawsuit affirms Patagonia’s rights over its well-known trade marks and challenges the unauthorised use of marks that weaken their distinctiveness.
- Intersection of Trade Mark and Copyright Law: Patagonia employs a dual-pronged approach, leveraging both trade mark and copyright protections to enforce its rights
Conclusion
This case is fundamentally about trade mark counterfeiting. Marden’s allegedly sold jackets that are identical or substantially indistinguishable from Patagonia’s registered marks. Counterfeiting is a strict liability offence, meaning intent does not need to be proven. The court’s decision will determine the extent of retailer liability, highlight the risks of dealing in counterfeit goods, and set a precedent for future enforcement actions against unauthorised sellers.
Source: