Law Street Media

Patagonia Sues Walmart for Trademark Infringement of its P-6 Trout Logo

A Walmart store front.

Salinas, United States - April 8, 2014: Walmart store exterior. Walmart is an American multinational corporation that runs large discount stores and is the world's largest public corporation.

On Thursday, Patagonia, Inc. filed a complaint in the Central District of California against Walmart Inc. and Robin Ruth USA alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. 

According to the complaint, Robin Ruth is a New York corporation that sells apparel products throughout the United States in addition to being a retailer and supplier for Walmart. Further, Walmart operates general retail stores throughout the country and a marketplace online, and in 2021 it had nearly $560 billion in sales and over 2 million employees.

Patagonia states it is a California corporation that has been designing, developing, marketing, and selling outdoor apparel, accessories and active sportswear for nearly fifty years. Further, Patagonia states that its brand and P-6 logo are famous in the United States and around the world, and instantly recognized by consumers as a symbol of innovative apparel designs, quality products and environmental and corporate responsibility.

The complaint states that Patagonia has several registered trademarks incorporating the P-6 logo which comprises a multicolored label inspired by a silhouette of the jagged peaks of the Mt. Fitz Roy skyline. One such logo at issue is the P-6 Trout logo which portrays the Mt. Fitz Roy skyline within the silhouette of a trout. Patagonia purports that its P-6 logos have become some of the most identifiable brands in the world and can be found on a wide range of apparel products created and sold by Patagonia. 

The complaint alleges that Robin Ruth has produced and sold apparel bearing nearly identical copies of Patagonia’s P-6 Trout logo and artwork, replacing Patagonia’s trademark with the word “Montana.” Additionally, the complaint alleges that the infringing products have been sold throughout the country in Walmart stores and online resulting in significant profits for the defendants.

Patagonia further argues that the infringing mark and products inevitably will imply to consumers that Patagonia has endorsed or authorized these products when it has not. The complaint argues that the defendants’ conduct has been willful and have caused or are likely to cause dilution of Patagonia’s famous and distinctive marks.

Accordingly, Patagonia filed the present lawsuit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, disgorgement of profits, recovery of lost profits, actual and treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs for the defendants alleged trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, copyright infringement and California trademark infringement, unfair competition and trademark dilution. Patagonia is represented by Verso Law Group

Exit mobile version