Space and solar punk I guess

Weird Al is allowed to parody everything because he's operating under copyright law, not trademark law.

Trademark governs who can "trade" under what "mark" i.e. the brand identity of a company. Companies don't own their trademarked word forever, but they maintain the exclusive right to sell things under that brand in their specific market sector. Patagonia doesn't own the name of a geographical region, they just own the right to be the only company using that name to sell clothing and outdoor gear.

A drag queen name can be a parody of a clothing and outdoor gear company.

A company's trademarked logo can be used in parody creative works, with more leeway if it's not for commercial purposes. Trademark parody is allowed! Patagonia has been aware of and allowed Pattie Gonia's trademark parody for years.

Trademarks are specific to market sector. Actress Chase Infiniti could start a makeup line named after herself and her trademark would not infringe on the Infiniti car brand because they are different markets and there is no risk of confusion. Pattie Gonia could probably trademark her name to sell frozen veggie burgers and Patagonia would not care.

Drag queen Jan Sport did a collab with JanSport bags. What Jan Sport almost certainly did not do is independently apply to register "Jan Sport" as a trademark in order to sell bags on her own, because that would infringe on JanSport's own trademark in the bag market sector.

What Pattie Gonia is not allowed to do -- the thing that Pattie Gonia actually did do and is being sued for -- is apply to register "Pattie Gonia" as a trademark to sell clothing, because apparently Pattie is in talks with North Face and HydroFlask to sell "Pattie Gonia"-branded gear. These companies probably won't finalize anything unless Pattie shows that she actually owns the trademark. Unfortunately, "Patagonia" is already a registered trademark in the clothing market sector, and these two names are too similar to exist in the same sector (see: "likelihood of confusion" legal standard).

Your drag queen name can parody a clothing company. You can parody the trademarked logo of a clothing company. But you cannot use the same name to then go on to also become a clothing company.

In order to maintain their own trademark, Patagonia must sue for trademark infringement. If they don't sue, and Pattie Gonia gets her own trademark, Pattie could sue Patagonia for infringement on her trademark. You can see why Patagonia won't be dropping this suit no matter how much you harass them.

The new conflict is from Pattie Gonia using the Patagonia imagery and the Pattie Gonia name on her own merchandise. This is the email Patagonia sent, with the images they feel conflict with the 2022 agreement.

Pattie responded to that by disagreeing that she had broken any agreement, and also obliquely threatening to expose Patagonia for making tactical gear for the US military?

Weird Al is allowed to parody everything because he's operating under copyright law, not trademark law.

Weird Al is allowed to parody everything because virtually every single one of his parodies is officially licensed from the rights holders. He asks permission, and shares revenue with the original artists. You hear a lot of people when you look into this - including the man himself! - saying "He doesn't have to do that! He just wants to cover his bases and maintain relationships." And....ehhhh... I mean maybe. Probably, even! But the world of copyright is vast and confusing.

For example, musicians own the copyright to both the lyrics and the music of their songs, and those can operate separately. Weird Al changes the lyrics of his parodies; but he very intentionally does not change the music. It is kind of the point, right? But if your parody recreates 99% of the music of the original, is that "transformative"? Could that not "substitute in the market" for the original work? Maybe American Pie's lyrics are a wash, and we are all only tuning in for the guitar riffs, so The Saga Begins does it for us just as well? Hey, how does retelling Star Wars comment on American Pie? That doesn't seem like a parody to me; that seems like satire, which operates under a less permissive legal regime...

If Pattie Gonia uses trade marks that can be mistaken for Patagonia's, people might buy one expecting the other. Patagonia is harmed if people stop associating their trademark with their quality of product, but also we're harmed if we can't rely on the trademark to tell if something is built well.

For referrence, this is Patagonia's mark:

When I was in third grade, I told this boy that it would be my birthday in four days, and he said, “okay, then I’ll buy you flowers.” Four days later he comes up to me and says, “my mom wouldn’t let me get flowers but I found you this violet in the grass.” That in and of itself was iconic and so so sweet, but it gets better.

A month later, I had to move, and because it was third grade, the teacher made everyone write me letters to say goodbye. His said, “I hope you have so much fun in your new house that you forget about me. I hope that you’re always happy and you never miss us. I’m sorry I never gave you flowers, but I can give you some now.” And he fucking. Drew me flowers.

No, Joey, I never forgot you. You are the reason I have standards in this life, and I’m so grateful to have known you. I hope you’re happy, wherever you are, and I hope that the rest of your days are filled with as much joy as you gave to me. I spilled water on the card about five years ago, and half of it is a a jumbled mess now, but I still have it. It’s the only card I still have.

Lisa says in 28.2 that Saint was the one who caused Dragon's trigger.

Other jokes include:

Why was silicon's medal taken away at the Winter Olympics? Further tests confirmed excessive doping.

What did the differential say when asked where he wanted to go for lunch? I'm impartial.

How does one find out what noodles are made of? Ramen spectroscopy!

Why are arrogant crystals the best for XRD? They have the most Bragg scattering.

If they're trying to convert you, they're trying to say that converting won't break your covenant with God, because Jesus's teachings have a continuity with it. Jesus acts as a sacrifice for all who let Him that satisfies the requirement of the old law by binding us to the new.

Speaking for myself, Jesus is a little self-contradictory only this point across the Gospel. At the beginning, during the Sermon on the Mount, He says He isn't replacing the law, and people who teach that any aspect of the law can be ignored will be the least in Heaven.

But then in the middle, Jesus mentions a loophole. A rich man asks Him, if he follows all the law, what else does he need to do to reach heaven. Jesus says he has to give all his worldly possessions to the poor and become poor himself. When the man balks, He gives his classic "it is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" and then adds that since God can do all things, God can save you even if you don't perfectly follow the law.

And then finally at the end, at the last supper, Jesus holds a cup of wine and says that the wine is his blood, shed for a new covenant that forgives sins.