Outdoor apparel company Patagonia™ is enforcing its trademark against drag environmentalist Pattie Gonia, who sought to use the name for a clothing line. While legally permissible, the lawsuit has sparked backlash for highlighting how a U.S. corporation profits from the name and imagery of a real region—Patagonia, spanning southern Argentina and Chile—without formal recognition or compensation to the Indigenous communities who have lived there for centuries. The company claims it must defend its trademark to maintain legal standing, but trademark experts argue that selective enforcement does not weaken brand rights, suggesting the lawsuit was a choice, not a necessity.

The controversy goes beyond intellectual property. Scholars of colonialism and Indigenous rights argue that Patagonia the brand perpetuates a long-standing myth of the region as an 'empty wilderness,' erasing the Mapuche, Tehuelche, and other communities who have inhabited and stewarded the land for generations. The name itself originated from 16th-century Spanish explorers who labeled Indigenous people 'Patagones' due to their large stature. In the late 1800s, both Argentina and Chile used the idea of a 'conquered desert' to justify violent military campaigns that displaced and killed thousands of Indigenous people.

Today, Patagonia the company funds environmental conservation in the region, but critics say this does not equate to accountability. The brand’s image of pristine nature contrasts with the economic reality that most local residents cannot afford its high-priced gear. Meanwhile, drag artist Pattie Gonia’s use of the name is seen by some as artistic expression or satire, raising questions about free speech and corporate power. The core issue, experts say, is not just trademark law—but who gets to control the narrative of what Patagonia means.