Trademark lawsuit news today is dominated by a handful of high-profile fights: Patagonia’s $1 suit against drag artist Pattie Gonia, an Australian high court ruling that let a designer keep the name “Katie Perry” over pop star Katy Perry’s objections, Google’s courtroom win over “YouTube Shorts” in London, Tesla’s injunction against an Indian namesake, and the final district court ruling in the Jack Daniel’s “Bad Spaniels” dog toy saga. Behind the cases, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is pulling thousands of registrations tied to fraudulent filings, and the Supreme Court has declined to revisit a doctrine that blocks many foreign-language brand names from registration.
Patagonia v. Pattie Gonia
In January 2026, Patagonia filed a federal trademark lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Wyn Wiley, a drag artist and environmental activist who performs as Pattie Gonia.1The Guardian. Patagonia Sues Drag Queen Pattie Gonia Trademark Infringement The case, Patagonia, Inc. v. Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc. et al., seeks just $1 in nominal damages plus legal fees.
Patagonia alleges Wiley’s use of the “Pattie Gonia” name and a mountain landscape logo on commercial merchandise creates consumer confusion. The suit was triggered in part by Wiley’s September 2025 application to trademark “Pattie Gonia” for clothing and environmental activism services.1The Guardian. Patagonia Sues Drag Queen Pattie Gonia Trademark Infringement The company also says Wiley violated a 2022 agreement between them over use of its name and logo.2KQED. Patagonia Sued Pattie Gonia Now Fans Want the Company to Back Down
The $1 figure is a strategic signal. Legal experts quoted on the case say the nominal claim telegraphs that Patagonia wants an injunction, not money.2KQED. Patagonia Sued Pattie Gonia Now Fans Want the Company to Back Down Wiley has said the litigation itself threatens her career, advocacy work, and the livelihoods of people she employs.3Statesman Journal. Central Oregon Drag Queen Pattie Gonia Patagonia Suit
As of June 2026, no settlement has been reached and no preliminary injunction has been issued. Wiley filed a response denying the allegations and requested a jury trial.4The New York Times. Pattie Gonia Patagonia Trademark Lawsuit Patagonia says it will drop the case if Wiley withdraws all trademark applications, stops using the mountain landscape logo, and halts sale of apparel branded as “Pattie Gonia.” Wiley has offered to drop her applications if Patagonia drops the suit.5Time. Patagonia Pattie Gonia Trademark Lawsuit What to Know
Katy Perry Loses Australian Name Fight
On March 11, 2026, the High Court of Australia ruled for fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor (formerly Katie Perry), letting her keep her “KATIE PERRY” trademark for clothing against a cancellation push by American pop star Katy Perry.6BBC. Australian High Court Rules in Favor of Designer Katie Perry The case is Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5.
Taylor registered “KATIE PERRY” in Australia in 2008 for Class 25 (clothing) and had been selling under the name since 2007. The singer’s companies, including Killer Queen LLC, moved to cancel the registration under the Trade Marks Act 1995, arguing consumer confusion was inevitable given the pop star’s fame and the way celebrities routinely sell branded merchandise.7High Court of Australia. Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5
The case seesawed before reaching the top court. Taylor won an infringement claim in 2023; an appeal reversed and canceled her trademark in 2024; the High Court reinstated it in 2026. The majority found that because of the “heightened strength of the reputation of Katy Perry,” ordinary Australian consumers would not confuse a small clothing brand called “Katie Perry” with the singer’s merchandise.6BBC. Australian High Court Rules in Favor of Designer Katie Perry The reasoning is counterintuitive: the singer was so famous that confusion with a small namesake was unlikely.
Taylor said the ruling “confirms what I always believed — that trademarks should protect businesses of all sizes.” The High Court sent the case back to the Full Federal Court to address remaining questions, including whether the singer infringed the designer’s mark, any defenses, and damages.7High Court of Australia. Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5 Those proceedings were unresolved as of mid-2026.8Clayton Utz. The One That Got Away: High Court Rules Against Katy Perry in Trade Mark Battle
Google Defeats “Shorts” Trademark Claim
On October 31, 2024, the High Court of England and Wales dismissed trademark infringement and passing-off claims against Google over the “YouTube Shorts” brand in Shorts International Limited v. Google [2024] EWHC 2738 (Ch).9The Trademark Lawyer Magazine. Google Does Not Fall Short
Shorts International Limited, a British distributor of short films, held several trademark registrations incorporating “Shorts” and argued YouTube’s use of the term created confusion with its ShortsTV brand. The suit was filed in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in June 2022 and transferred to the High Court in January 2023.10IAM Stobbs. Shorts International Falls Short in Its Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off Claim Against Google
The court found “shorts” is a descriptive term for short-form audiovisual content. The word mark “SHORTSTV” was ruled invalid for lack of distinctiveness. The company’s stylized marks were held valid only because they include a play symbol inside the letter “O,” giving them a low level of distinctive character.10IAM Stobbs. Shorts International Falls Short in Its Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off Claim Against Google Google’s use of “Shorts” did not include that design element and always appeared alongside the YouTube name, so there was no likelihood of confusion. The passing-off claim also failed. The court noted Google’s “honest practices” defense would not have succeeded because Google knew of the claims when it launched the feature, but that finding did not matter once the infringement claim was dismissed on the merits.9The Trademark Lawyer Magazine. Google Does Not Fall Short
Tesla Wins Injunction Against Indian Namesake
On November 24, 2025, the Delhi High Court granted Tesla an interim injunction in Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors. (CS(COMM) 353/2024), barring the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or promoting electric vehicles under the names “TESLA POWER” and “TESLA POWER USA.”11The Trademark Lawyer Magazine. Tesla Inc Wins Trademark Battle Against Tesla Power India
The court held that “TESLA” was the dominant feature of both parties’ marks and that adding “POWER” and “USA” did not distinguish them. There was evidence of actual confusion among the public and the media. The court also called the defendants’ adoption of the name dishonest on its face, pointing to contradictory explanations: at one point they said “TESLA” stood for “The Energy Storage on Leased Assets,” at another they said the name honored Nikola Tesla.11The Trademark Lawyer Magazine. Tesla Inc Wins Trademark Battle Against Tesla Power India The court held that Tesla’s reputation and “transborder goodwill” reach India for automobiles and batteries, and that delay in filing suit is not a reason to deny an injunction.
Jack Daniel’s “Bad Spaniels” Case Ends With a Split Result
The decade-long fight between Jack Daniel’s and VIP Products over a dog toy shaped like a whiskey bottle ended in early 2025. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (599 U.S. 140) sent the case back down, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued its final ruling on January 21, 2025.12Baker Donelson. Post-SCOTUS District Court Ruling in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products Reshapes Trademark Dilution Jurisprudence
On infringement, the court found no likelihood of confusion, concluding the “Bad Spaniels” toy was a successful parody whose humor dispelled any mistake about its source. On dilution, Jack Daniel’s prevailed: the court found the toy’s “disgusting” fecal associations harmed the whiskey brand’s reputation and issued a permanent injunction barring the toy’s sale and marketing.12Baker Donelson. Post-SCOTUS District Court Ruling in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products Reshapes Trademark Dilution Jurisprudence
The combined effect of the Supreme Court and district court rulings is that a parody can clear the traditional confusion test and still lose under a dilution theory if it links a famous brand to unsavory imagery. The 2023 Supreme Court decision also narrowed the Rogers v. Grimaldi First Amendment defense, holding it does not apply when a mark is used as a source identifier for the defendant’s own goods.13University of Miami Law Review. Bad Spaniels or Bad Trademark Law
Supreme Court Leaves Foreign Equivalents Doctrine Intact
On January 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Vetements Group AG v. Stewart (No. 25-215), leaving in place the “doctrine of foreign equivalents.”14U.S. Supreme Court. Vetements Group AG v. Stewart, Petition for Writ of Certiorari Under the doctrine, the USPTO translates a foreign word into English when deciding whether a mark is generic or descriptive. In this case, the office refused to register “VETEMENTS” because it is the French word for “clothing.”
The Federal Circuit upheld that refusal in May 2025, reasoning that consumers would likely associate the mark with its English meaning.15Wake Forest University Journal of Law and Policy. What In Re Vetements Group AG Gets Right About the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents Vetements argued registrability should turn on how American consumers actually perceive the mark on its face. The government countered that granting exclusive rights to a translated generic word would undercut the Lanham Act’s purpose.16Morgan Lewis. Lost in Translation: US Supreme Court and TTAB Consider Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents Brands using foreign-language descriptive words will continue to face registration hurdles in the United States.
USPTO Pulls Thousands of Fraudulent Trademark Filings
Away from the courtroom, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is running a large campaign against fraudulent trademark applications. Since October 2025, the agency has issued 11 administrative orders targeting roughly 10,500 applications and registrations for removal, citing forged attorney signatures, fabricated specimens, and unauthorized practice of law.17USPTO. USPTO Bulletin on Combating Trademark Fraud
In January 2026, Shenzhen Huanyee IP was targeted for improper signature entry and letting multiple people share a single USPTO account. In February, Swift Brand Mark LLC was cited for submitting more than 1,600 applications with signatures entered by people other than the actual signatories. In March, Deputy Trademark was targeted over more than 3,000 applications filed using improper methods and double billing.18IPWatchdog. USPTO Targets Removal of 10,500 Trademarks for Fraudulent Submissions and Scam Billing Practices
The current wave builds on earlier enforcement in which the agency canceled more than 52,000 applications and registrations tied to a foreign filing firm that misused credentials, submitted fake specimens, and forged signatures.18IPWatchdog. USPTO Targets Removal of 10,500 Trademarks for Fraudulent Submissions and Scam Billing Practices The USPTO has also added identity verification for its online platforms and updated the Nice Classification system, effective January 1, 2026, to include digital and virtual products in Class 9. For registered brand owners, the practical consequence is a cleaner register, but also closer scrutiny of who is signing filings on their behalf.