The Social Media Trademark Wars Are INSANE

Summary

The Brett Cooper Show – Episode Summary

Episode: The Social Media Trademark Wars Are INSANE
Date: July 1, 2026
Host: Brett Cooper

---

Overview

In this engaging episode, Brett Cooper dives deep into the absurd and heated world of social media-driven trademark battles. She explores how influencers, small businesses, and even large corporations are clashing over the rights to trendy vernacular and brand names, examining trademark law’s intersection with internet culture, authenticity, and community values. Brett uses humor, sharp observation, and a balanced perspective to shed light on how the “trademark wars of 2026” reflect generational, technological, and societal shifts.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction to the Trademark Wars (00:00–01:55)

• Social media as a new battleground: Instead of street protests, the latest conflicts unfold on TikTok and Instagram over who owns popular phrases.
• The Hot Girl Walk controversy: Originating from the viral phrase “Hot Girl Summer” (Megan Thee Stallion, 2019), the “hot girl” trend spread across countless sub-niches and became internet vernacular.
• Shock at trademarking generic phrases: Brett notes collective disbelief that influencers are trying not only to trademark such terms but also to enforce them legally.

Notable Quote

“This is the type of delusion that we are living in in the trademark wars of 2026.”
— Brett Cooper (02:17)

---

2. Case Study: “Hot Girl Walk” Trademark (01:55–05:50)

• Origin story: Mia Lind claims to have coined “Hot Girl Walk” during COVID, asserting she “reduced the stigma” around walking for wellness.
• Trademark enforcement: Mia is sending cease and desist letters to other creators for using the phrase at events, in playlists, and on podcasts.
• Community backlash: Content creators and event organizers are forced to rename activities (e.g., “High Temperature Woman Walk”).
  • [03:01] Hot Girl Walk Event Organizer: “So instead, this is a high temperature woman walk, which got the message across and in my opinion was a lot better.”
• Big creators affected: Influencers like Whitney Simmons reveal that even their Spotify playlists have been taken down.

Notable Moment

• [03:37] Whitney Simmons: “My playlist called Hot Girl Walk got taken down by Spotify because Mia Lind, who’s the creator of Hot Girl Walk, said that I was infringing on her trademark.”

---

3. “Hot Girls Read” & Community Ownership (05:50–06:22)

• Another attempt at trademarking: TikToker Allie trademarks “Hot Girls Read,” publicizing it as a win for her audience—but in reality, it limits others from using the term on merchandise.
• Rapid reversal under pressure: Intense backlash from the reading community leads Allie to surrender her trademark within 48 hours.
• Reflection on business vs. community interests: Brett sympathizes with Allie’s accountability but stresses the importance of not appropriating community-generated cultural phrases.

Notable Quote

“The decision was made more as like a business strategy decision than a human being decision. And I take full accountability for that.”
— Allie (05:50)

---

4. Internet Satire & Public Reaction (06:22–08:05)

• The memeification of trademark absurdity: TikTok comment sections are flooded with satire (e.g., “Just a heads up, I trademarked the word ‘and.’”).
• Brett’s perspective: Acknowledges that while trademarks are crucial for real brands, laying claim to universal catchphrases is overreach.

---

5. Case Study: “Get Your Pink Back” Conflict (08:05–17:14)

• Dani Austin’s ad campaign: Influencer Dani uses the phrase “get your pink back” (a metaphor about women regaining their vibrancy postpartum) to market a pink-bottled dry shampoo.
• Trademark origins and claims: Lindsey Grook, who trademarked “get your pink back” for her clothing line after her viral postpartum content, accuses Dani of misusing the slogan.
  • [12:14] Lindsey Grook describes her emotional connection to the phrase and her intent to “protect” it, while clarifying that partial product proceeds go to women’s charities.
• Online outrage and contradiction: Many support Lindsey, demanding legal action—even as they previously ridiculed other creators for similar trademark aggression.
• Host reaction: Brett calls out the hypocrisy and the performative drama, questioning the seriousness of the claims and noting that Dani’s product does not compete in Lindsey’s trademark classes (clothing, mugs, etc.).

Notable Quotes

“How is she misrepresenting how you spread your message? You mean a message that is objectively bigger than your clothing brand?”
— Brett Cooper (14:06)

“Trademarking is serious. So, yes, there is that aspect…”
— Lindsey Grook (15:05)

---

6. The Patagonia v. Patagonia (Drag Queen) Lawsuit (17:14–24:27)

• Background: Patagonia (the company) sues drag queen Patagonia (Win Wylie) for selling clothing using their trademarked name, after prior friendly negotiations and clear terms.
• Key distinction: Brett highlights that the brand’s defense is rooted in established legal need—to protect the trademark, they must apply it uniformly, not selectively.
  • Patagonia’s position: “We need to ask you not to sell merch using our fonts and our styles and not to use the name Patagonia on products.” (approx. 22:00)
• Prior compliance: The drag queen had agreed not to use the name commercially on clothing but later broke the agreement.
• Comparisons with other drag queens: Brett points to JanSport and Trixie Mattel, who navigated similar issues respectfully, staying within agreed boundaries to avoid litigation.

Notable Quotes

“If we randomly let one person...infringe upon our trademark, then we have to let everybody. So unfortunately, like, this is just the way that trademark law works, but you have to enforce it across the board.”
— Brett Cooper (approx. 21:00)

“The point I’m trying to make here is that in both of these stories, everyone stayed in their lanes...And it just seems like maybe that is not happening with Patty and Patagonia.”
— Brett Cooper (24:27)

---

7. Larger Reflections: Internet Culture Driving the Trademark Craze (24:27–end)

• Social media’s speed and repost culture: With trends and catchphrases spreading at lightning speed, the desire for ownership becomes more acute.
• Credit wars morphing into legal disputes: Arguments over who “created” content on TikTok and Instagram now extend into formal intellectual property law.
• The root cause: Brett sees these trademark wars as an extension of the internet’s chase for recognition, permanence, and viral status.

Notable Quote

“People are desperate to capture that—and to capture ownership. So honestly, I’m not surprised at all that...it’s ended up in the courts.”
— Brett Cooper (end)

---

Notable Timestamps and Quotes

| Segment | Speaker | Quote / Moment | Timestamp | |---------|---------|----------------|-----------| | Opening / Theme | Brett Cooper | “Welcome to the trademark wars of 2026.” | 00:16 | | On Hot Girl Walk | Allie | “Yes.” (regarding trademark status) | 01:40 | | On Event Rebranding | Event Organizer | “So instead, this is a high temperature woman walk...” | 03:01 | | On Playlists | Whitney Simmons | “My playlist called Hot Girl Walk got taken down by Spotify...” | 03:37 | | On Trademark Surrender | Allie | “First and foremost, the trademark is being surrendered.” | 05:50 | | On Audience Backlash | Random TikTok commenters | “Hey, bestie, just a heads up, I trademarked the word ‘and.’” | 06:40 | | On “Get Your Pink Back” | Dani Austin | “Because after four babies in five years, I think it’s time.” | 08:05 | | On Trademark Origin | Lindsey Grook | “Get Your PINK Back was born out of the most vulnerable time in my life...” | 12:14 | | On Hypocrisy | Brett Cooper | “It’s so hypocritical considering...the Internet was literally just slamming other creators for trying to do the same thing...” | 17:14 | | On Patagonia Lawsuit | Brett Cooper | “They simply said, like, in order to protect our trademark...we have to enforce it all the time.” | ~21:00 | | On Drag Name Precedents | Brett Cooper | “Trixie ended up being a voice in a Mattel owned movie. So I guess you could say they get along well enough...” | 24:27 | | On Bigger Picture | Brett Cooper | “Relevancy moves at the speed of light, and people are desperate to capture that and to capture ownership.” | End |

---

Memorable Moments

• The renaming of community events to “high temperature woman walk” as satire, showing resistance to trademark overreach.
• Allie’s explicit apology and public trademark surrender, illustrating the power of collective action and public opinion online.
• The “hot girl walk” playlist takedown by Spotify underlines how even large tech companies are compelled to enforce questionable trademarks.
• The passive-aggressive influencer feud over “get your pink back” and Brett’s pointed commentary about performative online outrage.
• Real-life legal complexities faced by public figures using puns or brand names, exemplified by the Patagonia drag queen comparison to JanSport and Trixie Mattel.

---

Conclusion

Brett wraps up by contextualizing the trademark dramas within broader trends of internet culture, identity, and the quest for recognition and ownership. She calls for greater nuance and maturity in handling shared cultural phrases and warns against the trivialization of trademark law for fleeting social media clout.

---

This episode offers a sharp, humorous, and far-reaching take on how social media, intellectual property, and generational attitudes collide in today’s hyper-connected world. It’s a must-listen for anyone curious about the strange new legal frontiers shaped by internet fame.

Transcript

[Brett Cooper]

Well, guys, a win is a win, because this summer, people have chosen not to riot out in the streets. Instead, they are rioting over on TikTok over trademarks. Yes. Welcome to the trademark wars of 2026. We have a TikTok influencer going viral for trademarking the phrase hot girl walk, saying that she came up with the name and the act of hot girls going on walks. No, I am not joking. There is also the drag queen Patagonia who is in a legal battle with the brand Patagonia because they had the audacity to ask him to stop selling clothing with their name on it and also to trying to trademark their name. And all of this is being duked out on social media. And I'll tell you exactly why. For this first story, I just want to take you back to 2019, when the artiste Megan Thee Stallion released a song entitled Hot Girl Summer. Now, since that song came out, that phrase, hot girl blank, hot girls doing whatever has been everywhere. We had hot girl summer. There's skinny girl summer, there is hot girl skincare, hot girl walk, hot, hot girls reading, hot girls hitting curbs, all of the things. You get the point. The phrase has been used everywhere by so many different individuals in many different industries and categories, it became enormous. So, like most of the Internet, I was absolutely aghast, just completely flabbergasted when I learned that creators on TikTok were attempting to trademark these universally used general phrases. Not just that, but also then suing and sending cease and desist to other people for using them. And this all broke open with the phrase hot girl walk. Just take a look. Have you ever heard of the hot girl walk? Hot girl walk?

[Allie]

Yes.

[Brett Cooper]

The walks you go on with your friends to get an iced coffee. Well, meet the creator of the hot girl walk.

[Whitney Simmons]

Mia.

[Lindsay Grook]

Trademark.

[Allie]

Yes.

[Brett Cooper]

Trademarked. Yes. She literally trademarked hot girl walk. But not just that guy. She's not just, you know, saying. I coined the phrase. No, she said that she actually invented the entire thing. More specifically, she reduced the stigma that was surrounding walking.

[Mia Lind]

I created the hawker walk when I was at a very low point in my life.

[Brett Cooper]

It was Covid.

[Mia Lind]

I was going through a lot at the time. There was a huge stigma surrounding walking. Nobody was walking for fitness or for fun. It was coveted. And so walking only existed as like the post dinner thing that your mom made you do. And it sounds so dumb looking back on it, but people were not really walking for fitness like that.

[Whitney Simmons]

Walking was stigmatized.

[Brett Cooper]

Yeah, nobody had ever done that before. Nobody had ever gone on A walk for fitness. Nobody had ever encouraged you to go outside, touch grass, take a walk, take a lap around the block. It only was created during COVID and by this one girl on TikTok. So just laying the groundwork for you here. This is the type of delusion that we are living in in the trademark wars of 2026. Now, the reason that all of this is blowing up is because now multiple other people online, multiple women have come forward saying that this girl, Mia, the creator of Walking, the reducer of stuff around walking, that she is sending them cease and desist letters and preventing them from using this general term that a lot of people use at events that they are putting on. Just watch. Legally, I'm not supposed to say this is a hot girl walk.

[Hot Girl Walk Event Organizer]

I don't know if you know this, but Hot Girl Walk is trademarked so you're not allowed to use it. I personally didn't know that. So when I wanted to host the Hot Girl Walk event, they told me to take it down immediately. So instead, this is a high temperature woman walk, which got the message across and in my opinion was a lot better.

[Brett Cooper]

I agree, it is 100% funnier. I would love to go on a high temperature woman walk. Now, in the comment section of that video, a huge fitness creator and influencer who, whose name is Whitney Simmons, she commented, she replied and said she sent me a cease and desist last year. Cry emoji. Cry emoji. And then one girl posted another video saying that Spotify even took down a playlist that she created because it was titled Hot Girl Walk. So my playlist called Hot Girl Walk

[Whitney Simmons]

got taken down by Spotify because Mia Lind, who's the creator of Hot Girl Walk, said that I was infringing on her trademark.

[Brett Cooper]

Now, apparently Spotify has just been working overtime for Mia Lind because there's another girl who created a wellness podcast podcast that she uploaded onto Spotify and in her little intro song montage vignette, she talked about Hot Girl Walk, had some kind of Hot Girl Walk thing in there and she got an email from Spotify saying, we are literally taking down your podcast because something that you are doing inside of the podcast is infringing on this girl's trademark. Anyway, moving on from the inventor of walking, Mia Lind is not the only person online who is trying to capitalize on the hot girl phrase. Thank you, Megan Thee Stallion, for creating this drama for me to talk about back in 2019, way before any of these creators were posting. Because another girl, this is Another girl on TikTok, her name is Allie. She trademarked the phrase Hot Girls Read, which she happily announced to her audience of book talkers and hot reading girls last month on Instagram. So she said, Hot Girls Read trademark is officially ours. 3ish years ago, after I started reading more consistently and finally started to love to read, I put Hot Girls Read on some bookmarks and crews that she's selling and the rest is freaking history. And then she goes on and she says this trademark is for the freaking girls. But actually that trademark was not for the freaking girls because it meant that everybody else who was using Hot Girls read on their accounts, their T shirts, their red bubble stickers, whatever they are making on Etsy, it meant that actually those girls, those hot girls could not use the phrase. So it was not for the fricking girls. It was just for her. So needless to say, nobody else was as frickin excited as Ali was. She received some such massive backlash from the Booktok hot Girls reading community. And they all argued that this is such a general phrase that the community has been using on merch and on videos and on usernames long before she ever got into reading in the first place. Cause she literally said in her caption that she only started to read like three years ago. So they're saying, you know, this predates even your entrance into the Booktok community, whatever it is. And so they said you had no right to trademark this for yourself. Again, it is not for the fricking girls. And so she dissolved the trademark about 48 hours later.

[Allie]

Hi, I want to talk about my trademark. First and foremost, the trademark is being surrendered. It is in the process of being filed right now to be abandoned. I want to say that it does take time for that to go through. So it's not going to show up automatically, but the paperwork has already been filed. But more importantly, I want to say I'm so sorry to every small business that I harmed in doing this. The decision was made more as like a business strategy decision than a human being decision. And I take full accountability for that. That was entirely wrong on my end. I, I hear you and I take that on the chin 100%.

[Brett Cooper]

And listen, I don't want to be mean to this girl. I really do think that she took it on the chin as she says. And I think it's really great that she said, you know, this was not a human decision, this was a business strategy decision. Because that really is what trademarking is. You are protecting your business entity. But the issue here and the Issue that everybody raised was that this was not something that you created. Like, nobody had trademarked this before you. It was kind of this community using the phrase in good faith. Nobody really even thought to trademark it because it was that somebody said it wasn't something that she came up with. And so they were saying, you know, you kind of stepped out of line with this thing that we all universally loved. But I do wanna say it is a business strategy when it is used correctly. But the point being, back to the wars. The comments across TikTok were just hysterical. Like, across the board, people had just had enough. Like, one person said, hey, bestie, just a heads up, I trademarked the word and. And so you'll be hearing from my team soon. Another person said, good morning, trademark. Another person said, I actually trademarked trademark. So everyone in the comments needs to delete their comments. The point I'm trying to make here is that everyone acknowledged that these trademark wars were just a bit ridiculous. People were trying to claim ownership over random phrases. It was just a bit much. And obviously, like I said, trademarking in and of itself is not ridiculous. It is an important part of business. It is a strategy. But taking ownership of general phrases that you did not even create, like, I'm sorry, you did not create walking, you did not create hot girl reading that part is ridiculous. And so that is why it completely surprised me when just a few weeks later, after the first iteration of the trademark wars of 2026, this same IT Internet, the same people online decided that influencer Danny Austin was literally a villain for using another creator's trademarked phrase in a new ad of her. So this was that ad. And then I will explain to you the drama.

[Danny Austin]

Lately, I've realized something important. Getting my pink back isn't about becoming who I was before kids. It's about honoring the woman I've become because of them. And I've learned that taking care of myself doesn't take anything away from my family. It actually gives them the best version of me. That's why this launch feels so personal to me. Our new dry shampoo comes in a pink bottle as a reminder that moms deserve to feel good, too. A little confidence boost, a little joy, a little citrus scented reminder that you're still in there. Because after four babies in five years, I think it's time.

[Brett Cooper]

All right, so I know that I just dropped you straight into the middle of an ad in the middle of this whole scandal. So what is happening here is that Danny Austin, who is a longtime influencer and creator, she Is, you know, one of the biggest OG YouTubers. And now she's big on Instagram and TikTok. She and her husband have a podcast. She does all the things. But she also has a hair care line called Divi. And through Divi, she released a limited edition dry shampoo spray. And it is cute. It's in a pink bottle. It smells tropical and citrusy. And full disclosure, I also wanna say I do know Danny Austin and her husband. I went to her launch event for this product. This is not an ad. I'm not being paid to do this or support her, but I'm just letting you know that I went to the event and I do have the hot pink dry shampoo bottle. Anyway, like I said, this dry. It is in a pink bottle. She did this video saying, you know, I've had four kids in five years. I'm trying to get my pink back. And the whole gist of it is that, you know, the dry shampoo will help your hair. It will help you feel more confident, yada, yada, yada. Which makes sense because I think her entire hair care brand was born after she had all this postpartum hair loss. She was dealing with not feeling great and confident, her hair was thinning. And all the products are designed for women, mothers like her to help with those issues. But now, moving on to the thing that became an issue, which is the phrase getting your pink back. Now, the phrase getting your pink back, it is a common phrase referring to flamingos who become white after they give bir, slowly get their color back. They become pink again as they move through the postpartum experience. But essentially, it is an analogy for the fact that, you know, women go through so much when they give birth, when they are raising children. Postpartum takes so much out of you. It literally drains the color from your body, is what this is saying. And over time, as your children get older, as you start to find yourself again, you become comfortable with this new version of yourself. Maybe you're not breastfeeding, whatever it is, you get your pink back. The color comes back into your life. You, you know, move on from the fog, postpartum anxiety, depression, whatever it is, you get your pink back. Now, when I first watched this ad, because obviously I follow Dani, it came across my social media initially, it didn't make a ton of sense to me. But, you know, Dani is a mom. Her audience is made up of mostly moms. Her brand's customers, her divi customers are mom. She literally makes a hair serum that I use that helps your Hair grow back postpartum. The reason why I have all of these little babies and flyaways are because of her hair serum. It's for postpartum women. So I thought about all of that and was like, okay, yeah, I. I get what she's trying to say and what she actively promotes with her brand, but apparently that all was a big issue for a lot of people online because another creator, who is named Lindsey Grook, trademarked the phrase getting your pink back for her clothing brand after she made a viral video back in 2022 drawing a comparison between flamingos and women. She said that she was the first person to ever make this analogy, the first person to ever post about it. So that's why she trademarked it. And so now people are literally ripping Dani a new one for using the phrase. And now the video, her video, her advertisement even has a community note, so you can see her post right here, and then it says, community note. This influencer has stolen the phrase get your pink back from a very popular influencer who has trademarked this phrase to do good in her community. Okay, I'm sorry, jumping ahead of myself, but you're gonna see it's not to do good in her community. It is to sell merch. I'm sure that the merch is meaningful. It is to support a mission, but she is using the trademark to sell things. Anyway, moving on. It's just crazy to me that they are saying that this was stolen. Now, Dani responded both in the comment section of her video and on her story. She said that she did not know that this, you know, w ranging phrase that women say in a colloquial sense. I've talked about it with friends. I see it on social media all the time. She was saying, I genuinely did not know that it was trademarked. It is a phrase that she has known about since her first child. She said that it, you know, it resonated with the pink bottle. She said that she was open to collaborating with the get your pink back brand with Lindsay the influencer. But then Lindsay responded, and it seems like that door is shut. But this is what she had to say.

[Lindsay Grook]

A few months ago, I received a package from a large creator in her company with their products, as well as get your pink back themed items with flamingos and my name, as well as a letter that said, here's to getting your pink back in style. Hope you love everything. On April 29, I went on Instagram stories, tagging them, thanking them. I even sent them a get your pink back package to thank them even more over the past 24 hours I've received a lot of DMS with a link to this video the creator made using get your Pink Back to market her new product. And I want to be clear because there's been a lot of confusion. I was in no way, shape or form made aware of this. The creator did not ask my permission. She did not ask me to persist participate in this marketing for her product, which I didn't know about nor was I given. I was tagged many times in the comment section, people asking me if this was a collaboration, which it is not, and people just tagging it, kind of calling out what's going on. These comments were then buried when the creator initiated a giveaway and called people to comment get your pink back on the video to enter to win. The creator also shared a screenshot of a Google AI search to her stories about the meaning of get your pink back. However, she did crop out my name from the description as well as my videos that were to the right of that. She's since deleted that story, received these images from other people. Since my name is also being misused and misrepresented in the comments, I now have to speak on the misinformation being spread get your PINK Back was born out of the most vulnerable time in my life. I was dealing with postpartum depression, regular depression, grief. So this message provided a glimpse of hope for me and I wanted to share that with others while also donating a portion of the proceeds to help women and families who are struggling. This message still resonates with me today as my husband and I struggle with secondary infertility. We've decided to protect this message and trademark it. Not to prevent the spread of the movement or the encouragement that it provides, but to ensure that it would not be misused in any way. So to clear up any confusion, if get your PINK Back is working with another company or a content creator, we would at the very least be tagged in it or there would be a collaborative post notification. We have also decided, both personally and professionally, to not include children's faces in any kind of marketing, ad or campaign or anything else for that matter. So these are just a few ways to tell if we're involved.

[Brett Cooper]

Okay, I'm sorry, but this is just so dramatic in my opinion. And I'm watching this video and I see this creator and I don't know her personally, so I have no idea what is going on. But to me it feels very obvious that she is playing both sides of this issue because in the video she's saying, you know, we are not involved. She's not saying that she is sending Danny Austin a cease and desist, that she's suing her, anything like that. She's, you know, complimenting Danny in some ways. But then she's also very passive aggressive in the video, being like, I would never do that, and I don't want my message being misused. And I would never. You know, she cropped out this part of her promotion where you would have seen that. I trademarked it, whatever it is. It's like very obviously a backhanded video. Like, if you have a problem, just come out and say it. Which honestly, you really can't come out and say because your trademark, your get your pink back trademark is for a clothing brand and tumblers, if I understand correctly. I'll put it here on the screen for you. Beanie socks, sweatshirts, glassware tumblers for use as drinking classes and coffee mugs. Like, Danny Austin is not doing any of that. She used your phrase in an ad. Your phrase in an ad. She, you know, used it as inspiration for deciding to make her container pink. But she's selling dry shampoo. She's not trying to sell T shirts or compete with your brand. She was using a common phrase that lots of women use to promote hair care. Instead, she turned it into this whole thing like, I can't believe she's stealing from another woman. And she shows her children's faces and content that we would never do. I mean, it's just like, oh, my God, the holier than thou stuff is just too much. It's like, it's not that serious, but apparently it is that serious. Like, for example, somebody commented on her TikTok response and said, I may be missing a portion of the story and want to understand, but why do you feel like your message is being misrepresented? Is it being used for a message that you don't agree with? Or is it more about the legality of marketing products with the slogan that you trademarked? And then Lindsay responded and said, trademarking is serious. So, yes, there is that aspect. And yes, the video misrepresents how get your pink pack does business, spreads the message, and creates campaigns. My heart broke when I saw it. I was confused and so were many others. Just trying to clear that up here. And thanks so much for being respectful. Your heart broke when you saw Dan. Like, oh, my God, let's come back down to earth here. Nothing about Dani's ad, even if you were confused by it, even if you felt like her Talking about postpartum with dry shampoo was a stretch. Nothing about that is heartbreaking. How is she misrepresenting how you spread your message? You mean a message that is objectively bigger than your clothing brand? Sorry, but it's just a bit much. But honestly, and this is the part that surprised me, based on what we saw with the whole hot girl trademark wars, people were really on her side. Like, somebody commented and said, thank you so much for saying something. I saw the post and felt very confused too. Thank you for being brave and clearing this up. I'm confused why she hasn't mentioned it since. Come on, Dani. We need some accountability for her for using a. Okay. We need accountability for her using a general phrase that lots of women say that we see all over social media that she did not know was trademarked. And even if she did know it was trademarked, everybody uses it on social media, so why would she think that she could not use it when sharing something about a product that she created? It's not the get your pink back dry shampoo. Tm. It's just.

[Whitney Simmons]

Ugh.

[Lindsay Grook]

Ugh.

[Brett Cooper]

Anyway, sorry, next commenter, this woman says, hey, girl, love your page. As a legal professional, sue her. Sue her. Oh, my God. Like, everybody, let's calm down. And maybe, you know, you guys can correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe I'm totally off base here. But, like, this does seem crazy, and it's so hypocritical considering the fact that the Internet was literally just slamming other creators for trying to do the same thing with their TikTok pages for, you know, trademarking general phrases. I understand trademarking a font, you know, a clothing brand that you're promoting what you're doing, but getting upset that somebody else says the phrase. Having this holier than thou attitude about the way in which they say a phrase that you also put on T shirts. I mean, it's, again, just a bit much. Thankfully, though, I was happy when I scrolled through the comments. When I got a little lower in the comment section, I realized I was not alone. One woman said, I'm genuinely confused by this. Although you popularized the message of get yout Pink Back, this is a phrase that has been around since I was a kid. I literally remember my mom talking about it. I feel like trademarking such a popular phrase is equivalent to the hot girl walk being trademarked. Drama. Literally. Yes, it is a popular phrase. It is a relevant phrase. It's something I've been thinking about a lot recently, and honestly, nothing helped me get my pink back. More than Jevoty. And while there are a million products that are advertised to postpartum women, they can all say that they're designed for you based on your lab work. And that is why I am so happy to be partnered with Jevity. Jevoti tests for over 100 markers in your body. Then they build you a custom supplement plan based on what your body needs, not what's trending or what your favorite influencer is taking literally based on what the data Sundays. And every six months they retest and they adjust your protocol so that you are not stuck taking the same stuff forever when your levels in your body has already changed. If you want to check this out, go to gojevity.com BrettCooper and use code Brett for 20% off your membership. Again, that is gojevity.com Brett Cooper use code Brett to stop guessing and start testing now. Speaking of testing, GCU gets an A plus in my book now. Gcu Grand Canyon University they do not settle for the status quo. They shatter it with academically rigorous and industry driven programs that are built to move at the speed of relevance, with practical skills, career readiness and opportunity for every learner. Recognized for excellence in academics and campus life, GCU's vibrant, welcoming campus was ranked in the top 20 best college campuses in the country by Niche.com for 2026. And what I love so much about GCU is that they believe that education, number one should be practical, but that it should not be a privilege, but an affordable path forward. Which is why this is crazy. They have frozen their tuition costs since 2009. That is not a joke. With some 380 programs, including 153 degree programs, 180 emphases and 56 certificate programs, online, hybrid and in person options, there truly is a path for every kind of student. They are grounded in Christian truth and they work to empower the next generation to lead with integrity, to serve with purpose and help transform their communities and build a future that matters. So take action and find your purpose today at gcu. It's private, it's Christian, it's affordable, it's nonprofit. Visit GCU Edu to learn more. All right, now back to the video. I just have to say, you know, who knew that the drama of the spring was going to be over trademarks of all things. And I really do wanna try to be fair and understanding here. And it genuinely would be one thing if Danny Austin was trying to launch a competing brand with clothing and tumblrs and subverting the other creator and her trademark it would be another thing if hot girl walks and hot girl reads were not established phrases literally used around the globe on social media before these creators tried to claim ownership. All this does is take a very important and integral part of law and business and turns it into something frivolous that arrogant people online get to toy with and fight over in comment sections. And they do that through the power of the Internet mob, which, in my opinion, is what is happening with the drag queen, Patagonia. But this time it seems like the Internet agrees that the brand in question, Patagonia does have a point. And I agree. Now, full disclosure, I want to say I did a video with Patty back in February. His real name is Win Wylie. It is coming out this week, which is very ironic timing. That video is about finding common ground over a lion. Love of nature. Obviously, I live on a farm. Patty does environmental work in national parks, that kind of thing. So came together over a campfire to talk about that. Win was very nice when we were filming, but we did not talk at all about his lawsuit. So I have no prior information. I'm not coming to you with any tea, but this is just my read on the situation. But what is happening is that Patagonia, the brand, is suing him. Patagonia, the drag queen, for $1 for trademark infringement. Now, Patti immediately started rallying the social media troops and the angle is very much big corpor going after the little guy. You know, corporations are going after LGBTQ activists and during Pride Month, of all things, like all of the normal activism, PR lines to garner support for his audience. That is what he's trying to do here. And just by the way that he and his supporters have framed it, you would think that this suit is just coming out of nowhere, that it is totally unprecedented that Patagonia has just randomly decided that they don't like him, that they want to take him out, et cetera, et cetera. But if you actually look, look at the court filings, you would see that this back and forth between Patagonia and Patty has been going on for more than three years. And Patagonia time and time again in all of these emails, has explained everything in very non threatening, non legal jargon. Like, they said that they were actually fans of Wynne's work. The tone was very much like, ugh, we're so sorry that we have to do this. But they simply said, like, in order to protect our trademark, to protect the Patagonia brand, we have to enforce it all the time. Like, if we randomly let one person, you Know one person that we love who's doing, you know, activism, work for something that we believe in. If we let you infringe upon our trademark, then we have to let everybody infringe upon our trademark. And those are people that are trying to take advantage of us. So unfortunately, like, this is just the way that trademark law works, but you have to enforce it across the board. And so they say in these emails, like, we're so sorry that we have to do this, but we need to ask you not to sell Merch using our fonts and our styles and not to use the name Patagonia on products. That's an important thing to note. Not saying you can't use the name, but do not use Patagonia on products that you are selling. And then they say, other than that, continue to do your work, use your name. And Patti, in writing. And this is in the lawsuit, agreed to those terms back in 2022. His email says, thank you so much for your handling of this issue and for including us in the discussion. We really appreciate each of you so much. Can't wait to get things going. Super excited. So he's saying, I'm going to continue on with my work. He was about to do a collaboration with Hydro Flash, so they were, you know, bailing out the details with that and how Patagonia would be kept outside of that collaboration. So he is, I'm going to go on with my work, let bygones be bygones and we will stay in our own respective lanes. Now, that only lasted a couple of years because fast forward to last year and Patagonia the drag queen launched Merch and started selling clothing branded with his name, Patagonia, which was the exact thing that, in writing, he agreed not to do. And obviously that makes sense because Patagonia, the brand, is trademarked for clothing. It's not like he is selling Patagonia drinks or cosmetics. And they're going out of their way to take him out. Like he is now literally in their lane of things that they have trademarked.

[Whitney Simmons]

Furthermore, Patty, when you're a maintenance engineer in a beverage manufacturing plant, you keep production lines moving and quality on track because there is no room for slowdowns. With Grainger's vast selection of high quality motor sensors, belts and hard to find parts, you can get what you need fast and all in one place. So nothing gets in the way of getting the job done. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Brett Cooper]

Patagonia also attempted to trademark the name Patagonia, his brand for clothing, after he had already agreed to the terms that would let them peacefully co exist. Hence why this year, I believe it was back in January or February, Patagonia chose to take action, sue him to protect their trademark. Again, this is something that they had to do to protect the trademarks across the board. In their communications with Patty the drag queen, they said that they would be more than happy to drop a case. Again, they don't want to do this. They don't want to have to sue them. They don't want to get in the middle of the PR warfare, whatever it is. They said they would drop the case if Patty withdraws the trademark request, does not use the Patagonia fonts or logos on the things that he's selling, and stops selling products. Once again, they're asking stop selling products using Patagonia. They're not saying that he can't use the name Patagonia in his work, his performances, whatever. He just can't make products and sell them with the full Patagonia name. And Patty said no. And so with this story within the summer of the trademark wars, you're now going to see a totally different angle, because rather than creators, you know, trying to trademark these phrases, grasping at straws, claiming ownership over very general things with their trademarks, you have a very reputable, serious corporation with serious, all encompassing trademarks that they need to uphold and protect. And they tried to work through it with Patty over the last three years, which we see in the court filings. But unfortunately, at the end of the day, that was just not the way that the cookie crumbled. And they do not believe that Patti is upholding his side of the bargain, which is why they sued. And it genuinely is unfortunate for everyone involved because there are cases literally with other drag queens where this has worked out. Because drag performers use brand names as their drag names all the time. That is not new. So, for example, take the drag queen, JanSport or Trixie Mattel, because both of these drag performers are also limited in how they can use their name commercially and what they can sell using their full drag name. So, for example, when JanSport back in 2020, I think it was, went on RuPaul's Drag Race, they had to just go by Jan because they could not commercially use the name JanSport. Cause obviously it's a backpack brand. They could not use the full name on television. This was not a big corporation trying to steal his name and erase the little guy. It was literally just them Protecting their established brand and saying, we don't know who you are. We don't want people thinking that we are endorsing you on RuPaul's Drag Race, essentially. But what is different in these stories compared to what's happening with Patagonia and Patty is that over time, these two drag performers and their respective brands form relationship. And they eventually collaborated like JanSport literally did a JanSport bat, which you can see here now. Trixie, for their part, stayed completely out of the Mattel doll business. They named their commercial brand Just Trixie. To avoid all confusion, they started a cosmetics line. And it is not Trixie Mattel Cosmetics. It is simply Trixie Cosmetics. That is where they sell all the merch. It is simply just Trixie merch. All of that, like anything that they are selling under the Trixie name is just Trixie. They completely drop the Mattel when they are selling products. And while Trixie has not done a full brand collaboration with Mattel like JanSport has, they did not get into a lawsuit, they have not had a public feud, and Trixie ended up being a voice in a Mattel owned movie. So I guess you could say they get along well enough to hire Trixie to be part of their universe, to be in their orbit. So the point I'm trying to make here is that in both of these stories, everyone stayed in their lanes. They operated with respect for one another and respect for one another's trademarks. And it just seems like maybe that is not happening with Patty and Patagonia. I mean, unfortunately, while Paddy is very influential and does have a lot of supporters who are backing him, people everywhere are in comment sections making videos on TikTok, going like, oh, I hate to support a big corporation, but this really is not what you think it is, as you can see right here. And based on my personal read, I feel like this is just a prime example of somebody choosing to use this as a PR opportunity to literally win in the court of public opinion. I think he maybe put a comment somewhere where he was like, you know, Patagonia, let's see what the court of public opinion says. So I think he's actually being pretty open about that. And he's doing that because he does not want to have to compromise like other people in his industry have had to do. Patagonia has also made it very clear that they are unwilling to compromise, understandably, because they have an entire brand, an entire trademark, a, you know, decades, decades long, upheld trademark that they have to protect. And experts everywhere, even fans of Patty's are saying that Patagonia has the strongest case, so best of luck there. And so all of this has just been really interesting to me. Like, every time I open up TikTok, I felt like I saw another video of somebody duking it out over trademarks. There's another story that I didn't include that's between, like, an. An Australian clothing brand, the country singer Ernest. And so now they're feuding over trademarks. And it's just, like, weird that all of this is coming up at the same time. Like, I've never heard so much about trademarks in my life. Never expected to know anything about trademarks. But then after watching my, you know, 15th video about one of these stories, I sat with it for a minute and it really clicked. Like, just think about the world that we currently live in. It honestly makes sense. Like, social media moves incredibly fast. And more specifically, repost culture is huge. People see a video, they recreate it. That's why, you know, TikTok dances are huge. That is why trends dominate the platform. People will give their own spin on a parody or a video. Literally in the span of 30 seconds, they can see a video, open up their camera, do a stitch, a repost recreation. It's publicized, and it has the potential to go viral without anybody knowing that that creator was not the originator of that trend or that thing, whatever they are recreating. However, now that the video has gone viral, their name is attached to it, even if they were the original person, but now that individual is the one that's getting the credit and the attention. And all of this, you know, is to seek relevancy. And relevancy moves at the speed of light, and people are desperate to capture that and to capture ownership. And so people, for years now, I mean, if You've been on TikTok since the COVID days when people were starting dances and starting trends and challenges, people have been duking it out in the comment sections, you know, saying, you know, make sure you credit this person, this person was the original creator. You didn't create this. Like it has been been wild for the last six years. And so honestly, I'm not surprised at all that fast forward to now, it's ended up in the courts.