Patagonia Settles Trademark Infringement Lawsuit with Gap
Patagonia settled its trademark infringement lawsuit against Gap on Wednesday, bringing closure to one of the B Corp‘s many attempts to defend its P-6 logo and colorful mountain silhouette design.
No details of the settlement, in the Northern California District Court, were released and attorneys for both sides did not respond immediately to Sourcing Journal requests for comment. The court dismissed Patagonia’s case with prejudice, but left the door open for Gap to refile its counterclaim if it chooses.
More from Sourcing Journal
Fashion is Falling Short When it Comes to 'Closing the Loop'
Amazon, Hit With Driver Lawsuit, Braces for 1,000-Worker Walkout
The case was originally brought by Patagonia in November when the California-based outdoors outfitter noticed fellow California clothier Gap that it was producing a pocket on a pullover fleece that looked very similar in shape and design to its own. The phrase “GAP ORIGINAL” appears above the pocket along with a rectangular array of mountain peaks.
At left, Patagonia’s trademarked P-6 pocket design on a pullover fleece, and at right the “Gap Original” fleece.
Patagonia, which has repeatedly defended its designs in recent years, objected to both similarities and sued for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution of a famous mark, each charge under state and federal law.
Gap fired back in January, filing a motion to dismiss part of Patagonia’s claim on the basis of precedence.
“While the Complaint contains allegations of similarity with respect to the first two elements—allegations which Gap disputes—it does not allege that Gap has used any mark similar to Patagonia, nor could it since Gap markets its product under its well- known GAP trademark,” the San Francisco apparel company wrote in its motion. “As the Ninth Circuit has held, ‘Pepsi-[Cola]’ does not infringe Coca–Cola’s ‘Coke.’ Nothing further need be said.”
Patagonia came back with a rebuttal on March 14 that ultimately stated that it “denies that The Gap is entitled to any of the requested relief or any relief whatsoever,” but conceded that two sides where at an impasse on what the meaning of “similar” is.
“Patagonia lacks information sufficient to know whether The Gap’s understanding of “similar designs” is the same as Patagonia’s understanding,” Patagonia argued. “Patagonia otherwise admits… that a present controversy exists whether The Gap may sell the Gap Jackets or other products that use confusingly similar designs or designs that use elements that are even more similar to Patagonia’s trade dress and trademarks than the designs contained in the Gap Jackets.”
Wednesday’s settlement of the Gap lawsuit came as Patagonia sued Seattle-based Nordstrom for allegedly selling counterfeit Patagonia products at its Nordstrom Rack off-price retail stores. According to the complaint, Nordstrom and Patagonia used to have a “years-long” partnership which dissolved prior to Patagonia discovering the alleged knockoffs.
Last month, Patagonia filed a lawsuit against an online T-shirt seller with a mailing address in Texas but unknown ownership. That complaint alleged that T-ShirtAt was guilty of “… willfulness, wantonness, malice and conscious indifference,” in producing shirts made to look like Patagonia’s own design emblazoned with names like “Wakanda,” “Catagonia,” and “Patagof*** yourself.”
Prior to that, Patagonia sued Walmart last October for allegedly infringing on its trademarked fish logo, that instead of saying “Patagonia” read “Montana” in a similar font.
Like Gap, Walmart struck back, filing a rebuttal in the Central California District Court that essentially admitted the designs “look like” Patagonia’s, but otherwise denied every allegation, and submitted that the case should be dismissed in its entirety because of “protected First Amendment expression,” and that the use of the fish image “constitutes fair use.”
