I don't even see that he did bring patents in at all. It seems to be a total non-sequitur. The argument is entirely about branding. How does "...and it happens to be patented" change anything about how the quality of the secondhand product reflects on the brand?
Patent covering the ability for clothing to change color and temperature at will. I thought that point was clear.
But what does the patent have anything to do with anything? The seller would still be interested in protecting their brand even if the product wasn't patented and the patent would still exist even if the product was sold under a generic label. There is no apparent connection between the patent and the interest in protecting the brand.
Yeah, you can use trademark law to enforce quality control, which makes much more sense than using patents, which the product might or might not even have.
Then the question becomes whether first sale applies to trademarks, which it does, doesn't it?