Denaro Puro LLC v. Nike, Inc.
1:25-cv-02812
S.D.N.Y.Jun 3, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jamaal Russ, acting pro se, filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Nike, Inc. and Stadium Enterprises LLC (Stadium Goods).
- Russ is the owner and operator of Denaro Puro LLC, which holds the "DENARO PURO" trademark; he alleges Nike used the marks "PURE MONEY" and "AIR MORE MONEY" on footwear, and Stadium Goods resold them.
- Russ alleges harm to his brand, reputation, business, goodwill, and person, claiming violations under the Lanham Act and New York General Business Law.
- However, the trademark at issue is owned by Denaro Puro LLC, not by Russ personally.
- Russ filed and prosecuted the lawsuit pro se (without a lawyer), but as a nonlawyer cannot represent Denaro Puro LLC in federal court.
- The court considers whether to allow amendment but determines amendment would be futile and dismisses the case without prejudice or leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a nonlawyer pro se plaintiff represent an LLC in federal court? | Russ argues his personal interests are injured by the alleged infringement. | Not directly stated, but law bars nonlawyer representation of LLC. | No; LLC must be represented by a licensed attorney, regardless of single-member status. |
| Does Russ have standing to assert claims for trademark infringement held by Denaro Puro LLC? | Russ claims injury to his business and person from infringement. | Not explicitly stated, but implied only LLC has standing. | No; Russ cannot assert claims based on an LLC-owned trademark in his pro se capacity. |
| Should the case be dismissed, and should leave to amend be granted? | Russ might seek to amend to cure defects. | Not directly stated. | Dismissed as amendment would be futile; defects cannot be cured by amendment. |
| Is the IFP (in forma pauperis) status matter still relevant? | Russ requested withdrawal of IFP status after paying fees. | Not at issue. | Moot because fees were paid; motion to withdraw IFP denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2007) (An LLC cannot be represented pro se in federal court; must appear through licensed counsel)
- Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 1998) (A person proceeding pro se can only represent personal interests, not those of entities)
- Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (Artificial entities like LLCs and corporations cannot appear in court without a lawyer)
- Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2000) (Complaints may be dismissed as frivolous if the court lacks jurisdiction or claims are not viable)
- Wachtler v. County of Herkimer, 35 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1994) (Court may dismiss for failure to state a claim after giving notice and opportunity to be heard)