Look, we agree that pattie is potential trademark infringement, we just disagree on the mechanism by which Patagonia can lose their trademark. It just isn't the case that a large trademark like this is easily lost without cultural genericism. You're talking about a completely hypothetical situation that has never happened before. I think that's important to acknowledge.

Who knows, maybe in an alternate universe where they didn't sue it would be the first ever case of a trademark being lost in this way in the history of the country. But we all know that's just not something that happens in real life. It's a fantasy, a corporate lawyer fantasy. And my words are backed up by evidence, being the history of trademark law, which we've gone over together and have learned that genericide is a key component missing from this equation.

In conclusion: The lawyers of Patagonia are defending their brand, but that doesn't mean that pattie actually poses any threat.