|
 |
 |
How can Patagonia, the brand, own the name of a geographical region? That’s the most common question I keep seeing asked about Patagonia©’s controversial lawsuit against Pattie Gonia, the environmental activist and drag queen.
I’m interested in that question myself—not just legally, but morally. Because as I’ve been reading through all the lawsuit coverage, I’ve noted that almost no one is talking about what this dispute means for Patagonia as an actual place, shaped by Indigenous histories, colonial conquest, and ongoing struggles over land and sovereignty.
So over the last couple days, I did two things. First, I spoke with a trademark law professor to understand how a company can legally trademark a geographic term in the first place; what rights that trademark actually gives it; and whether Patagonia© really “had no choice” but to sue Pattie Gonia in order to protect its brand.
Then, I spoke with two scholars of Patagonia, colonialism, and Mapuche self-determination to understand the deeper politics behind the name itself: how “Patagonia” became a colonial fantasy of empty wilderness, how that fantasy obscures the Indigenous people and histories still rooted there, and what it means for a U.S. corporation to profit from that mythology while policing how others use it.
The legal question of place ownership
One of the strangest things in Patagonia©’s lawsuit against Pattie Gonia appears in paragraph 19 of the complaint, where the company describes its trademarks as “fanciful.”
 |
In trademark law, “fanciful” means “a completely made up term,” said Alexandra Roberts, a trademark law professor at Northeastern University. “So like Excedrin, Rolex, Xerox, stuff like that,” she said. “And that kind of mark gets the broadest protection.”
This is, of course, false. Patagonia is a real place: A vast region at the southern end of South America, spanning parts of present-day Argentina and Chile. So for Roberts, the fact that the company describes the mark as “fanciful” is “shocking and obnoxious,” she said. “It’s definitely disingenuous.”
The “fanciful” claim probably won’t matter to the outcome of the lawsuit, Roberts said. But it does highlight what’s bothering so many people about it. Patagonia© appears to be asserting ownership rights over the name of a real place. How can it do that, legally?
The short answer is: Pretty easily. “Geographic names can absolutely be trademarks,” Roberts said. There are a bunch of rules, nut in this case, what matters is that Patagonia© is not using the word Patagonia to tell consumers where its clothes come from. It is using Patagonia to tell consumers who its clothes come from.
Over many decades, Patagonia© has successfully made the name of a real place function as the name of a company that has little to do with the place itself. This is not unusual: Amazon is a rainforest and a river and also one of the world’s most powerful corporations. Andes is a mountain range and also a brand of mint chocolate candy. Tahoe, Yukon, and Denali are places and also SUVs.
These companies don’t own the place itself; rather, they own the commercial meaning they have built over years around those names. For Patagonia©, that means they own the use of “Patagonia” as a brand for apparel and outdoor gear.