IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—E.D. Ark.: Plaintiff admonished for AI use in $18M trademark suit, (Dec 3, 2025)

By Jonathan Anderson

The pro se plaintiff submitted a pleading that contained false quotations from cases and referenced non-existent cases.

The federal district court in the Eastern District of Arkansas kept alive an individual’s lawsuit alleging infringement by counterfeiting against New Balance, despite expressing skepticism of the claim. The court indicated that it needed more time to wrestle with what it described as the “vexed” issue of counterfeiting and the case law on it. The litigation was brought by a pro se plaintiff, who is seeking $18 million from the athletic goods company for infringement of the plaintiff’s HOOPLIFE mark. As part of its ruling, the court admonished the plaintiff after a pleading he filed contained false quotations from cases and referenced other non-existent cases. The plaintiff later apologized for using artificial intelligence (AI) to draft the filing (Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00265-DPM (E.D. Ark. Dec. 2, 2025)).

Background. Plaintiff, Steven Magee, is the registered owner of the standard character mark HOOPLIFE for various athletic apparel. After Magee registered the mark, the Hooplife Basketball Academy ordered approximately 900 items of athletic apparel from BSN Sports, a New Balance entity. The items had “Hooplife,” “Hooplife Basketball Academy,” or both on them. Magee, pro se, subsequently sued New Balance Athletics, Inc. multiple times for trademark infringement. In this instance, he asserted five claims, including infringement by counterfeiting, and sought approximately $18 million in damages.

New Balance moved to dismiss the counterfeiting claim or strike Magee’s enhanced-damages requests rooted in that claim. Magee used artificial intelligence (AI) to draft a response, which misstated the holdings of 27 cases, including inventing false quotations from 23 cases and fabricating two cases. Magee apologized to the court and said he was unaware that generative AI could do such things. New Balance moved to strike the response, while Magee asked the court to disregard what his response said about some cases or allow a substituted paper. Magee also moved for summary judgment on his counterfeiting claim.

Motion to strike. The court granted New Balance’s motion to strike Magee’s response that relied on AI and misstated the holdings of cases. The court admonished him and directed him to verify all sources that he cites in his court filings. The court further directed Magee to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed.

Counterfeiting claim. The court denied New Balance’s motion to dismiss with prejudice the counterfeiting claim and denied Magee’s motion for summary judgment on this claim. The court said it was skeptical of the claim but also determined that it was at least plausible.

The court found that the mark HOOPLIFE is fanciful and therefore assumed its distinctiveness. The court said the mark’s breadth “contains the seeds of difficulty, or perhaps opportunity for, a counterfeiting claim.” Comparison is the usual way to determine whether a challenged mark is identical or substantially indistinguishable from a registered mark, and New Balance encouraged the court to begin comparing the marks, in part using evidence that Magee attached to the complaint and submitted in previous litigation. However, Magee argued that there is no need for comparison because all the athletic apparel ordered by Hooplife Basketball Academy included the term “Hooplife,” so New Balance is a counterfeiter.

In the court’s view, Magee’s argument would “collapse the statute’s distinction between a counterfeit mark and any infringing mark.” The court contemplated that while Magee’s counterfeiting claim appeared overbroad, this could just be “a function of the word-mark context.”

The court said its “mind is not at rest on this” and it concluded that “it can do a better job deciding this important issue in due course – with clearer photographs for comparison, facts about potential confusion, and focused briefing about allegedly counterfeit word marks such as HOOPLIFE®.” The court said it must first decide whether there was infringement, and if there was, then the counterfeiting question and the related damages questions will arise.

Thus, the court held that Magee’s request for enhanced damages stays in the case because he has plausibly alleged counterfeit marks. The court further said that New Balance was “probably correct on the number of types-of-goods issue.”

The Case is No. 4:25-cv-00265-DPM.

Judge: Marshall, D.

Attorneys: Steven Magee, pro se. Robert D. Carroll (Goodwin Procter, LLP) for New Balance Athletics Inc.

Companies: New Balance Athletics Inc.

Cases: AINews Trademark TechnologyInternet ArkansasNews