Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc. (2025)

Case details
Full caption
STEVEN MAGEE v. NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS, INC
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2025
Disposition
Motion Granted
trademark apparel-and He's in that mark term "standard without any drawing Doc. mark and Doc. 31. In ordered New made and and had both on pro se, sued New He He Case 4:25-cv-00265-DPM Document 31 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 7IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION STEVEN MAGEE PLAINTIFF v. No. 4:25-cv-265-DPM NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS, INC. DEFENDANT ORDER About a decade ago, Steven Magee registered HOOPLIFE ® as a for athletic shirts, pants, jackets, hats, caps, uniforms. business. The is the in characters claim to particular font, style, size, or color[,]" as required by the regulation applicable to this kind of mark. 1 at 30; 37 C.F.R. § 2.52(a)(l). A few years later Magee registered the same for athletic bags, backpacks, various other bags. 1 at 2023, the "Hooplife Basketball Academy," which is based in central Arkansas, approximately 900 items of athletic apparel from BSN Sports, a Balance entity. The company supplied them. These jerseys, t-shirts, hoodies, such Hooplife, Hooplife Basketball Academy, or them. Magee, acting has Balance Athletics, Inc., for trademark infringement. makes five claims, one of which is infringement by counterfeiting. seeks approximately $18,000,000 in
at pursuing New Magee v. Balance, Magee v. Brands Co., New or that prepared New New and Doc. 16 He unaware that do He He Court what about but or summary judgment on New Court an He pursued in and other E.g., Magee v. LLC, Magee v. LLC, -2-Case 4:25-cv-00265-DPM Document 31 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 7damages. This case is Magee's third effort these claims against Balance. New Inc., No. 5:23-cv-923-FB (W.D. Tex.); Varsity Holding Inc., No. 3:24-cv-833-E-BK (N.D. Tex.). Balance moves to dismiss the counterfeiting claim strike Magee' s enhanced-damages requests rooted in claim. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b). Magee his response using generative AI. Balance moves to strike it. By Balance's count, Magee's response misstated the holdings of twenty-seven of the thirty cases cited, invented false quotations from twenty-three cases, fabricated two cases. at 17 & Appendix A. Magee apologizes. says he was generative AI could such things. promises to do better in future filings. asks the to disregard his response says nine cases, consider the rest of his response, allow a substituted paper. Magee also moves for his counterfeiting claim. * Balance's motion to strike Magee's response is granted. The accepts Magee' s apology. That's a good first step. But Magee is experienced prose litigant. has this dispute diligently three courts filed similar cases about his trademarks. BSN Sports, No. 3:21-cv-1726-G-BT (N.D. Tex.); BSN Sports, No. 3:25-cv-2485-E-BN (N.D.
should not but Court must he and and must about with and about must show why not gummed up New and with argument that Court was on about had Court about New now summary judgment on withdrew New and version-he with LOCAL RULE on Doc. 19. no on Court's https://www.are.uscourts.gov/ -3-Case 4:25-cv-00265-DPM Document 31 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 7Tex). It be necessary to do so, the admonishes him: Magee verify all sources cites in his court filings, especially cases, statutes, regulations, rules,* other legal authorities; he cultivate a healthy skepticism materials located internet searches especially materials generated by artificial intelligence. Magee also cause by 9 January 2025 the Court should impose a monetary sanction. Magee' s response the case. It required Balance to incur unnecessary attorney's fees. The misstatements false quotations are so interwoven the the unable to rely the document. Magee' s points counterfeiting to be gleaned from his other filings. All this is unacceptable. * While the is a bit skeptical Magee' s counterfeiting claim, as he argues it, Balance's motion to dismiss this claim with prejudice is denied. The claim is plausible. Magee's motion for this claim is also denied. *Another example. Magee his response to Balance's motion to strike filed a substituted saying did so to comply 7.2(e)'s twenty-five-page limit briefs. But the Local Rule imposes page limit. All the Local Rules are this website. court- info/local-rules-and-orders/local-rules.
with Lanham of" mark ... when the" or "A mark 1s or that mark "in and that such or .... In on Court "A mark than mark that and an mark not Court mark Monahan not or word that at and would about v. point that trademark law not but -4-Case 4:25-cv-00265-DPM Document 31 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 7Start the statute. The Act imposes liability for nonconsensual commercial use any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered " use is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive[.]" 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a). The statute defines some of its terms. 'counterfeit' is a spurious which identical with, substantially indistinguishable from, a registered mark." 15 U.S.C. § 1127. In another provision, the statute requires the registered be use" the "counterfeit mark" be "for goods or services sold, offered for sale, distributed " 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(l)(B)(i). the only binding precedent this issue, the of Appeals explained the statute. counterfeit is thus far more similar to the registered a barely infringes it, so infringing is necessarily also a counterfeit." Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, Inc. v. Rushmore Photo & Gifts, Inc., 908 F.3d 313, 340 (8th Cir. 2018). The Sturgis addressed the counterfeit issue as to a design (the mark), Sturgis Bike Week ® Take the Ride to Sturgis ® , the marks in case. 908 F.3d 320, 338, & 339-40. The explanation, though, faithfully applies the statute's definition helpfully illuminates a deep issue: Whether the average person be confused the product. Kelly-Brown Winfrey, 717 F.3d 295, 314-15 (2d Cir. 2013). "The more fundamental is the purpose of is to guarantee genuine trademarks to
that under mark and not General Electric Co. v. Speicher, J.) Court RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION§ (AM. L. INST. standard word mark standard without or Doc. at mark's breadth or perhaps way whether mark at at New do some used that ordered by New argument would mark and any New hasn't argued appears -5-Case 4:25-cv-00265-DPM Document 31 Filed 12/02/25 Page 5 of 7guarantee every item sold the is the genuine trademarked product, a substitute." 877 F.2d 531,534 (7th Cir. 1989) (Posner, HOOPLIFE ® is a fanciful term and, the assumes, therefore distinctive. 13 cmt. b & c 1995). It is a character or mark: "The consists of characters claim to any particular font, style, size, color." 1 30. This required definition is sweeping. But the also contains the seeds of difficulty, opportunity, for a counterfeiting claim. Comparison is the usual to determine the challenged is identical or substantially indistinguishable from the registered mark. Sturgis, 908 F.3d 339-40; Kelly-Brown, 717 F.3d 314-15. Balance encourages the Court to comparing now, deploying the color copies Magee in his Texas litigation plus the black-and-white copies attached to his complaint. Magee responds there's no need: All the athletic apparel Hooplife Basketball Academy included the term Hooplife, so Balance is a counterfeiter. Magee' s seems to prove too much. It collapse the statute's distinction between a counterfeit infringing mark. Magee has a plausible infringement claim. Balance otherwise. While his counterfeiting claim overbroad,
perhaps word-mark mind not at on and Court in Sparkman and S. of TRADEMARK REP. Court important due course-with photographs about and about word punt, but punt Court that then and and enough that New on number Doc. summary Doc. without Doc. Doc. -6-Case 4:25-cv-00265-DPM Document 31 Filed 12/02/25 Page 6 of 7this is simply a function of the context. The Court's is rest this. As the parties know, this is coming to appreciate, the fighting issue is vexed. "Confusion abounds the existing case law regarding counterfeiting." Jessica Bromall Rod Berman, Inconsistency and Confusion in the Judicial Treatment Counterfeiting Claims, 113 553,586 (2023). If confusion is too strong a conclusion, lack of clarity is not. The concludes it can do a better job deciding this issue in clearer for comparison, facts potential confusion, focused briefing allegedly counterfeit marks such as HOOPLIFE ® . This is a sometimes a is the best one can do. The concludes the first question is infringement. If there was, the counterfeiting question the related damages questions (treble statutory) will arise. For now, it is to hold Magee's request for enhanced damages stays in the case because he has plausibly alleged counterfeit marks. Balance is probably correct the of types-of-goods issue. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). Discovery will clarify the list. * Motion to dismiss in part, 11, denied. Motion for partial judgment, 21, denied. Both denials are prejudice. Motion to strike, 16, granted. Magee's response,
must show Court due 26(£) -7-Case 4:25-cv-00265-DPM Document 31 Filed 12/02/25 Page 7 of 713, is stricken. Magee cause about further sanctions for his generative-AI-infected response by 9 January 2025. The regrets its delay in addressing all these motions. For good cause, the Court extends the date for the parties' Rule report to 19 December 2025. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access