Patagonia, Inc. v. Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc. (Pattie Gonia). Trademark infringement, dilution, and registration of a similar mark.
On 21 January 2026, Patagonia, Inc. filed proceedings in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Pattie Gonia Productions, and its founder Wyn Wiley. The complaint brings claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution of a famous mark, and related claims under California law.
The case concerns the defendants’ use and attempted registration of the mark PATTIE GONIA, and whether that use infringes and dilutes Patagonia’s registered PATAGONIA trademarks.
Patagonia’s trademarks
Patagonia is a California company based in Ventura, California. It has used the PATAGONIA mark since at least 1973 in connection with outdoor clothing and equipment. Over time, the mark has expanded into retail services, books, films, podcasts, online media, educational programmes, and environmental advocacy.
Patagonia owns numerous United States trademark registrations, many of which are incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. These registrations cover apparel, retail services, printed publications, digital media, film production, and educational and advocacy services. Patagonia pleads that the PATAGONIA mark is well known and qualifies as a famous mark for the purposes of federal and state trademark dilution law.
The defendants and the trademark application
Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc. is an Oregon corporation based in Bend, Oregon. Wyn Wiley is the founder of the company and the creator of the “Pattie Gonia” persona.
On 21 September 2025, Entrepreneur Enterprises filed a US trademark application for PATTIE GONIA in the following classes:
- Class 009: recorded music
- Class 016: printed matter
- Class 025: clothing
- Class 035: marketing and promotional services
- Class 041: entertainment and speaking services in environmental and equality fields
The application covers goods and services that largely overlap with those covered by Patagonia’s existing registrations.
Communications between the parties
The complaint relies on a series of communications from February 2022. These followed an enquiry from Hydro Flask about a possible collaboration with Pattie Gonia.
In those communications, Patagonia raised concerns about confusion between the two names. Pattie Gonia agreed not to use the name as a commercial brand, not to sell merchandise under the name, and not to use Patagonia-style logos or visual elements. These understandings were recorded in emails exchanged between 9 and 16 February 2022.
These communications are relied on to show that the defendants were aware of Patagonia’s trademark rights and the risk of confusion.
Commercial use after 2024
Despite the earlier communications, the complaint alleges that in September 2024 the defendants launched an online store at pattiegoniamerch(dot)com selling clothing and merchandise under the PATTIE GONIA name.
In early 2025, Patagonia contacted the defendants and asked them to stop selling merchandise. Pattie Gonia responded that clothing merchandise was a moot point, but the online store was later restocked and expanded.
The defendants also promoted live performances and tours under the same name and sold merchandise in connection with those events. The complaint further alleges that the defendants used logos and designs similar to Patagonia’s mountain logo on clothing and accessories.
Similarity of marks and overlap of goods
The marks PATAGONIA and PATTIE GONIA are phonetically very similar. According to the complaint, the defendants also used visual designs similar to Patagonia’s branding.
More importantly, both parties operate in the same commercial areas. Both offer clothing, media content, environmental advocacy, educational services, and live events. The defendants’ trademark application covers many of the same categories already protected by Patagonia’s registrations.
In trademark law, where marks are highly similar and goods and services overlap, courts generally find a likelihood of consumer confusion.
Confusion and false designation
Patagonia alleges instances of actual consumer confusion, including social media comments suggesting that Pattie Gonia is connected to Patagonia. The complaint also refers to public statements by Pattie Gonia promoting “my merch” in contexts where people were wearing Patagonia products.
These allegations support claims for infringement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. Patagonia argues that consumers are likely to believe that Pattie Gonia’s products and services are authorised, sponsored, or approved by Patagonia.
Dilution of a famous mark
Patagonia also brings a claim for dilution. This does not require proof of confusion or competition. The key question is whether the use of PATTIE GONIA weakens the distinctiveness of the PATAGONIA mark.
Patagonia argues that because its mark is famous and long established, the use of a near-identical name in the same commercial space reduces its ability to function as an indicator of origin.
Under trademark dilution law, the motives or social purpose of the later adopter of the mark are not legally relevant.
Remedies sought
Patagonia seeks nominal damages of one dollar. The main remedies sought are injunctive.
These include an order preventing further use of PATTIE GONIA, refusal or cancellation of the trademark application, destruction of infringing merchandise, and a permanent injunction against future similar uses.
The case is therefore framed as a brand protection action rather than a damages claim.
Conclusion
From a legal perspective, the dispute follows standard trademark principles. The defendants applied to register a mark that is very similar to an existing famous mark and used it in overlapping commercial fields.
Once a name is used as a trademark and applied for registration, it is treated as a source identifier. At that point, trademark law applies in the ordinary way, regardless of the origin or intent behind the name.
The case therefore turns on whether the defendants’ use of PATTIE GONIA is likely to cause confusion and whether it dilutes the distinctiveness of the PATAGONIA mark.
Further reading