Can I Use a Big Brand’s Name as a Joke or Parody for My Nebraska Business? Lessons from Patagonia v. Pattie Gonia
Executive Summary: A joke, pun, drag persona, meme, or parody name can still create trademark risk when it starts functioning like a brand. For Nebraska entrepreneurs, artists, creators, nonprofits, and small businesses, the central question is usually not whether the name is funny. The better question is whether consumers could reasonably think the goods or services are sponsored by, affiliated with, approved by, or connected to the original brand. The trademark lawsuit commonly discussed as Patagonia v. Pattie Gonia is a useful example. Patagonia filed a federal complaint in California against Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc. dba Pattie Gonia Productions and Wyn Wiley, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition involving the “PATTIE GONIA” name and related branding. The complaint seeks nominal damages of $1, attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief, and registration-related relief. The defendants dispute Patagonia’s position publicly, and the allegations should not be treated as court findings. For Nebraska businesses, the key lesson is practical: parody may matter, but it is not an automatic defense when the challenged use identifies the source of the user’s own merchandise, events, services, or commercial offerings. Before adopting a name that plays off a famous brand, Nebraska businesses should conduct a careful clearance review, consider both federal and Nebraska trademark issues, and get individualized legal advice before selling products or filing a trademark application.
The Patagonia v. Pattie Gonia Lawsuit and Why Nebraska Businesses Should Care
The case commonly described as Patagonia v. Pattie Gonia is formally captioned Patagonia, Inc. v. Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc. dba Pattie Gonia Productions and Wyn Wiley, Case No. 2:26-cv-00586, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint, filed January 21, 2026, asserts claims for trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition.
According to the complaint, Patagonia alleges that Pattie Gonia Productions applied on September 21, 2025, to register “PATTIE GONIA” as a trademark, Serial No. 99/404,728, in five classes covering recorded music, stickers and posters, clothing, marketing services, and entertainment services including live music, performances, and motivational speaking services in the field of equality and environmentalism.
Patagonia’s theory is not limited to the similarity of the words “Patagonia” and “Pattie Gonia.” The complaint alleges consumer confusion, false association, dilution, and overlap between the parties’ goods, services, advocacy, events, and branding. Patagonia seeks nominal damages of $1, attorneys’ fees, an injunction, and relief directed at stopping further pursuit of the trademark application.
Pattie Gonia has publicly disputed Patagonia’s position, including through statements reported by news outlets, and has framed the name and persona as involving parody, puns, activism, and identity. Public reporting also reflects Patagonia’s position that the dispute is about protecting its trademark rights rather than challenging advocacy or expression.
Although that lawsuit is not a Nebraska case, it matters here because many Nebraska businesses sell online, ship products across state lines, promote events nationally, or build brands through social media. Once a Nebraska business operates beyond a purely local footprint, federal trademark law can become central.
The Basic Trademark Rule: Source Matters
Trademark law protects words, names, symbols, designs, and other identifiers that tell consumers where goods or services come from. The core concern is consumer confusion. Under the Lanham Act, liability can arise when a person uses a reproduction, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in commerce in a way that is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception.
Federal law also addresses false association. Section 1125(a) of the Lanham Act reaches uses that are likely to cause confusion about affiliation, connection, association, origin, sponsorship, or approval.
Nebraska law has a similar confusion-based concept for marks registered under the Nebraska Trademark Registration Act. Nebraska’s unauthorized-use statute applies to certain uses of a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a Nebraska-registered mark where the use is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to source of origin.
That means changing one letter, adding a pun, or making the name humorous does not automatically solve the problem. A court would look at context, including the similarity of the marks, similarity of goods or services, trade channels, consumer perception, evidence of actual confusion, intent, and how the name is presented in the marketplace.
When Does a Joke or Parody Become Trademark Risk?
Parody can matter, but it is not a free pass
Parody arguments tend to be stronger when the use clearly comments on the original brand and does not function as the user’s own source-identifying mark. But there is no simple “it was a joke” safe harbor. Courts evaluate how consumers encounter the name or design, what goods or services are involved, whether the use points back to the original brand as commentary, and whether the use instead identifies the user’s own business, merchandise, event, or product line.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. 140 (2023), is especially important. The Court held that when an accused use is used as a source identifier for the defendant’s own goods, the ordinary likelihood-of-confusion analysis applies. The Court also explained that parody may still make a difference within that standard trademark analysis, but it does not automatically avoid the usual trademark test.
Merchandise can increase the risk, but the analysis is still fact-specific
Merchandise can create trademark risk, especially when a name, logo, slogan, or design appears in a way consumers may understand as identifying the source of goods. That can matter for T-shirts, hats, stickers, patches, posters, online shops, event merchandise, nonprofit fundraising goods, and influencer merchandise.
But not every sale of merchandise resolves the legal question. Courts may still consider whether the use is source-identifying, expressive, ornamental, nominative, descriptive, or likely to confuse consumers. A Nebraska creator selling a shirt with commentary about a famous brand is in a different position than a Nebraska business using a similar name and similar visual branding as the identity of its own clothing line.
Filing a trademark application can draw attention
A trademark application is a public claim that the applicant wants trademark rights for specified goods or services. If the proposed mark resembles a famous brand, the application itself may trigger an opposition, demand letter, or lawsuit.
That is one reason the Patagonia dispute is useful for Nebraska businesses. Patagonia’s complaint places significant emphasis on the alleged federal trademark application for “PATTIE GONIA,” the listed goods and services, and Patagonia’s position that those goods and services overlap with its own trademark rights.
Infringement, Dilution, and Registration Are Different Issues
Trademark infringement is usually about likely consumer confusion. A plaintiff typically argues that consumers may believe the defendant’s goods or services come from, are approved by, or are affiliated with the plaintiff.
False association is closely related. Under Section 1125(a), the issue can include confusion about affiliation, connection, sponsorship, or approval, not just confusion about who physically made the product.
Dilution is different. Federal dilution law can protect famous marks against uses likely to blur or tarnish the famous mark, even without actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury. The statute also contains exclusions for certain fair uses, news reporting and commentary, and noncommercial use.
Nebraska also has a state-law famous-mark provision. Nebraska law allows the owner of a mark famous in this state, subject to equitable principles, to seek an injunction against certain commercial uses that begin after the mark has become famous and cause dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark. Nebraska’s statute also identifies exclusions for comparative fair use, noncommercial use, and news reporting or commentary.
Registration is another separate issue. A mark may be refused registration even if no court has found infringement. A registered mark may still be challenged. And a state trademark registration is not the same thing as federal registration. Nebraska businesses should avoid treating a trademark filing as a simple formality when a name resembles an established brand.
Why Might a Trademark Complaint Seek Nominal Damages?
A request for $1 in nominal damages does not mean a lawsuit is minor. It may mean the plaintiff is focused less on money damages and more on nonmonetary relief, such as an injunction, attorneys’ fees, a court order affecting a trademark application, or a ruling clarifying rights.
In the Patagonia complaint, Patagonia seeks nominal damages, attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief, and an order related to the “PATTIE GONIA” trademark application.
This is also where people often oversimplify the idea that trademark owners have a “duty to police.” Trademark owners do not necessarily have to sue every person who uses a similar word, joke, reference, or design. Enforcement strategy is fact-specific. Some situations may call for monitoring, a coexistence agreement, a license, a demand letter, an opposition proceeding, or no action at all.
But tolerating uses that cause a mark to lose its source-identifying significance can create enforcement problems. Nebraska’s Trademark Registration Act defines an abandoned mark to include a situation where a course of conduct by the owner, including acts of omission, causes the mark to lose its significance as a mark.
Practical Steps for Nebraska Businesses and Creatives
1. Conduct a real clearance search before launching
Before printing merchandise, filing a trademark application, opening an online shop, or announcing a brand, search more than just Google. A practical clearance search should include the USPTO database, Nebraska Secretary of State records, domain names, social media handles, marketplace listings, and common-law uses in the actual industry.
A clearance search reduces risk, but it does not guarantee that a name is available or non-infringing. Similarity, market overlap, consumer perception, and the strength of the earlier mark still matter.
2. Be careful with famous brands, especially in the same market
Risk increases when the parody name is close to a famous brand and is used for related goods or services. A Nebraska apparel brand using a name that sounds like a famous clothing company is different from a one-off joke in a caption. Similar logos, fonts, color schemes, packaging, labels, and trade dress can add more risk.
3. Do not assume a disclaimer fixes the problem
A disclaimer like “not affiliated with Patagonia” or “parody account” may help in some contexts, but it does not automatically cure likely confusion. If the name, logo, product type, and marketing still point consumers toward the famous brand, a disclaimer may not be enough.
4. Think before filing a trademark application
Filing can be useful, but it also creates a public record. If your proposed Nebraska brand name is close to a famous national brand, the filing may draw attention from the brand owner. Before filing, consider whether the mark is distinctive, whether it is likely to be refused, and whether it could trigger an objection.
5. Consider Nebraska registration for local marks
Nebraska has a state trademark registration statute, the Nebraska Trademark Registration Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 87-126 to 87-144. Current Nebraska law states that a trademark application must be submitted in duplicate, accompanied by three specimens showing the mark as actually used, and accompanied by a filing fee of $110 if submitted in writing or $100 if submitted electronically.
State registration may be useful for a Nebraska-focused business, but it is not a substitute for federal clearance. The Nebraska Secretary of State’s trademark application form cautions that Nebraska registration does not guarantee that a similar mark has not been registered nationally with the USPTO.
6. Consider federal registration if your business is growing
Federal registration can provide broader benefits. The USPTO explains that federal registration creates rights throughout the United States and its territories and places the registration in the USPTO’s public database. For Nebraska businesses selling online, shipping products, franchising, licensing, attending national trade shows, or expanding beyond Nebraska, federal registration may be an important part of the brand strategy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I use a famous brand’s name if everyone knows it is a joke?
Maybe, but that is not the safest way to frame the question. Trademark law asks whether consumers are likely to be confused about source, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval. A joke can still create legal risk if it functions as a brand name for your own goods or services.
Does changing one letter avoid trademark infringement?
Usually not by itself. Trademark law looks at overall commercial impression, including sound, appearance, meaning, product overlap, channels of trade, and consumer perception. A one-letter change may still be too close if consumers could think the two brands are connected.
Is parody protected if I sell T-shirts or stickers?
It depends. Selling merchandise does not automatically eliminate parody arguments, but it can make the trademark issue more serious if the name or design appears to identify the source of the goods. After Jack Daniel’s, when the accused use functions as a trademark for the defendant’s own goods, courts generally apply the ordinary likelihood-of-confusion analysis.
What is the difference between trademark infringement and dilution?
Infringement generally focuses on likely consumer confusion. Dilution focuses on harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a famous mark and can apply even without likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury. Both doctrines are technical and fact-specific.
Do I need a Nebraska trademark registration to have rights?
Not always. Nebraska law preserves rights acquired in good faith at common law. However, relying only on common-law rights can make enforcement harder because you may need to prove priority, geographic scope, and consumer recognition.
Is a Nebraska trademark registration enough?
It may be enough for some local businesses, but not for every business. A Nebraska registration is a state-level tool. If your business sells across state lines, operates online, licenses products, or plans to expand, federal registration and federal clearance should be considered.
What should I do if I receive a cease-and-desist letter?
Do not ignore it, and do not respond emotionally online. Preserve the letter, gather examples of your branding and sales, pause before expanding the challenged use, and talk with a trademark attorney. The sender may have a valid claim, an overstated claim, or a claim that can be resolved through changes, coexistence terms, or a negotiated agreement.
What should Nebraska businesses learn from Patagonia v. Pattie Gonia?
The practical lesson is that parody, activism, humor, and personal branding can overlap with trademark law once a name is used commercially. The more a name functions as a brand for merchandise, events, marketing, or services, the more important trademark clearance becomes.
Disclaimer
This article is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Trademark clearance, parody, fair use, dilution, registration, and enforcement issues are highly fact-specific. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship, and Nebraska businesses should consult a trademark attorney before adopting, registering, or selling goods or services under a name that resembles another brand.