NASCAR seeks in court to stop networks of sellers of counterfeit goods
NASCAR has once again turned to U.S. federal courts in order to confront sellers who, according to the organization's court filings, offer unauthorized and counterfeit goods bearing its protected marks online. The original case opens a broader issue faced by major sports brands: pirated and counterfeit goods are no longer sold only at stands around stadiums or racetracks, but through a series of seemingly legitimate online stores, accounts on marketplace platforms, advertisements, and search results. In the lawsuit filed in the United States, NASCAR claims that the identities of the alleged perpetrators are difficult to determine because, according to the allegations in the court file, they use false names, incomplete addresses, multiple accounts, and a network of connected online stores. According to available court records, during 2025 and 2026 NASCAR initiated several proceedings against groups of unidentified individuals, companies, and online sellers listed in so-called Schedule A exhibits, which in U.S. practice is a common form of litigation against a larger number of alleged online counterfeiters.
What NASCAR claims in the lawsuit
According to the complaint filed on July 25, 2025, before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, NASCAR states that the proceeding was initiated to suppress e-commerce counterfeiters who, as the plaintiff claims, exploit the reputation and market value of the NASCAR brand by selling unauthorized products bearing registered NASCAR trademarks. The lawsuit states that the sellers created numerous online stores designed to look to customers like sales outlets for authentic NASCAR merchandise, although, according to NASCAR, they are inferior imitations. The organization claims that these sellers are not licensed, are not authorized dealers, and do not have permission to use NASCAR's marks. The file also states that the products and online stores share similar design elements, registration patterns, payment methods, metadata, similar prices, discounts, and texts, which NASCAR uses as an argument that the operations are not necessarily isolated cases. The court proceeding does not mean that all allegations have been proven; these are the plaintiff's claims, which the court must assess according to evidence and procedural rules.
In the same lawsuit, NASCAR also describes the way in which, according to its claims, potential buyers are misled. It states that certain online stores appeared sophisticated, accepted payments in U.S. dollars, offered delivery to the United States, and used security signs or customer support to create an impression of legitimacy. According to the court filing, the disputed websites allegedly use NASCAR's marks in text, content, and metatags, and additionally rely on impermissible SEO tactics and social media spam in order to appear high in search results. NASCAR therefore asks the court for measures that would cover not only sellers but also intermediaries that enable the visibility, advertising, hosting, payment, or operation of the disputed stores.
Why the perpetrators are difficult to find
One of the central problems in the case is the question of identity. According to NASCAR's complaint, the alleged counterfeiters often use fictitious names and addresses, incomplete registration data, privacy protection services, and multiple accounts on different platforms. The lawsuit also states that some sellers, after learning of a legal proceeding or account removal, may open new accounts under other names or move their online infrastructure to servers outside the United States. Such practice makes difficult the classic approach in which the seller is first clearly identified, then court documents are served on the seller, and after that damages or an injunction against further sales are sought. Instead, trademark holders increasingly rely on broad lawsuits against groups of online stores and sales accounts that are connected by patterns of behavior, similar products, or technical indicators. Precisely for that reason, in cases of this kind, plaintiffs often seek expedited discovery, electronic service, and orders requiring platforms, search engines, or payment processors to block the disputed accounts.
The court docket in a separate NASCAR case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, filed on November 13, 2025, shows how such a proceeding can develop. According to Justia's records, Judge April M. Perry on November 20, 2025, approved expedited discovery and electronic service, finding that electronic service did not violate an international agreement and was an effective method of communication with an online marketplace seller. In the same case, according to the court docket, on January 15, 2026, NASCAR's motion for default judgment was granted after no one appeared for the defendant side. Such an outcome shows one of the specific features of these disputes: even when the plaintiff obtains a court decision, the practical question of collection, permanent account removal, and prevention of new sales identities may remain demanding. That is why, for brands, injunctions, removal of advertisements, and deactivation of accounts are often just as important as monetary compensation itself.
What NASCAR asks the court for
According to the July 2025 complaint, NASCAR seeks temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions that would prevent the defendants from using NASCAR's trademarks, selling goods that are not authentic or not approved, presenting products as official, and moving, storing, or further distributing the disputed items. The plaintiff also asks the court to disable the online stores and make them inactive and non-transferable, and to order platforms, social networks, search engines, web-hosting providers, and online marketplaces, after notice of the injunction, to stop providing services to accounts connected with the sale of counterfeit goods. The request also mentions removal of advertisements and prevention of links to the disputed stores from appearing in search results. Such measures target the infrastructure of online sales, not only individual items, because counterfeit goods can quickly reappear under a new store name. NASCAR also seeks disgorgement of profits obtained through the alleged unlawful acts, damages, attorney's fees, and, alternatively, statutory damages provided for under the U.S. Trademark Act, known as the Lanham Act.
According to the complaint's request for relief, NASCAR relies on protection of registered trademarks, false designation of origin, and violation of Illinois regulations on deceptive trade practices. Such claims simultaneously protect revenue from licensed merchandise and consumers from products that may be of poorer quality, misrepresented, or sold without a warranty and clear source. NASCAR's complaint particularly emphasizes that consumers may believe they are buying a product approved by the organization, even though the seller has no license. If the court accepts such claims, the legal consequences may include shutdown of accounts, bans on further sales, and monetary sanctions; if the defendants appear and contest the allegations, the case could develop through evidentiary proceedings, although in many similar online cases the defendants do not respond at all.
Broader context: counterfeits are a global problem, and e-commerce has accelerated it
The problem NASCAR faces is part of a much broader trend. According to a report by the OECD and the European Union Intellectual Property Office published in 2025, counterfeit and pirated goods in 2021 were worth around 467 billion U.S. dollars, or up to 2.3 percent of global imports. For imports into the European Union, the same estimate was around 117 billion dollars, or up to 4.7 percent of total imports into the EU. The OECD and EUIPO state that counterfeiters increasingly exploit online platforms, modern logistics, and postal shipments, and that small shipments, which are harder to monitor, are especially problematic. The report highlights that shipments containing fewer than ten items accounted for 79 percent of all seizures in 2020 and 2021, which well explains why online stores and marketplace accounts have become more important than traditional large shipments. Such a pattern also matches NASCAR's claims that counterfeiters rely on small packages, new sales identities, and rapid changes in digital infrastructure.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, in its materials on intellectual property rights protection, states that counterfeit and pirated goods threaten business competitiveness, jobs, national security, and the health and safety of consumers. According to CBP's summary for fiscal year 2021, the agency seized more than 27,000 shipments with an estimated manufacturer's suggested retail price of 3.3 billion dollars if the goods had been authentic, and approximately 75 percent of the value of those goods originated from or was transshipped through China or Hong Kong. Although these data do not relate specifically to NASCAR, they provide a framework for understanding why sports organizations and trademark holders increasingly seek court orders that reach platforms, advertising, and payment flows. In the online environment, a product can be advertised in one country, paid for through another service provider, shipped from a third jurisdiction, and sold to a buyer who believes he is buying official merchandise. For that reason, the fight against counterfeits is increasingly being conducted simultaneously on legal, technological, and logistical terrain.
Sports merchandise is particularly vulnerable to brand abuse
NASCAR is a sports organization with a long history and a strong trademark identity. According to NASCAR's official history and publicly available data from court filings, the organization dates back to 1948, and its marks have been used for decades on clothing, promotional products, digital channels, and licensed merchandise. In sports, the emotional value of the brand is often just as important as the product itself: fans buy T-shirts, caps, jackets, stickers, and other items to show affiliation with a favorite competition, driver, or event. Precisely for that reason, counterfeiters can profit from a recognizable name, logo, and seasonal interest, especially during major races or periods of increased media visibility. If the buyer does not distinguish an authorized store from a copy, the damage to the trademark holder is not only lost sales, but also erosion of trust in the quality of the goods. NASCAR builds part of its argument precisely on that point, claiming that the sale of unauthorized products causes confusion, mistake, and deception of consumers.
Unlike physical sales around sports venues, online sales enable rapid scaling and constant changing of addresses. One store can disappear after a complaint, while a new one appears with almost the same photographs, prices, and product descriptions. According to NASCAR's complaint, certain stores allegedly use the same registration patterns, similar design, similar payment methods, similar servers, and the same or similar texts, which indicates a connection among the sales operations. Such claims are important because they help the plaintiff explain why multiple sellers can be covered by a single proceeding. Still, the court standard requires that the connection and infringements be supported by evidence, not merely assumptions. That is why in these cases lists of defendants and investigative evidence are often sealed in order to prevent alleged infringers from removing accounts in advance, moving funds, or changing the sales infrastructure before the court decides on temporary measures.
A legal victory does not have to mean the end of the problem
Court proceedings against online counterfeiters can produce concrete results, especially when the court approves account blocking, removal of advertisements, prohibition of trademark use, and disclosure of information about sellers. However, such proceedings are rarely a complete solution if networks of sellers quickly reconstitute themselves. According to NASCAR's allegations, some of the alleged counterfeiters maintain multiple accounts, use offshore bank accounts, and move funds beyond the reach of the U.S. court. The complaint also mentions communication among sellers about tactics for avoiding detection, operating multiple accounts, and monitoring possible new lawsuits. These claims have not been independently confirmed in publicly available documents for each individual seller, but they fit into the broader pattern that the OECD, EUIPO, and U.S. customs authorities describe in their reports on online trade in counterfeits. For NASCAR and similar sports organizations, continuity of monitoring is therefore crucial: tracking new domains, marketplace advertisements, social networks, search results, and payment channels.
As of May 15, 2026, available public records show that NASCAR continues to use federal courts as one of the tools in the fight against counterfeit goods. Justia records a case filed on April 16, 2026, before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against individuals, corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, and unincorporated associations listed in Schedule A, with the basis of the proceeding in trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. PacerMonitor also lists another NASCAR case in the same district, filed on April 27, 2026, which points to the continuation of a legal strategy aimed at groups of online sellers. Although the details of all exhibits and lists of defendants are not available without access to the PACER court system, the public metadata confirm that NASCAR does not view the problem as a single incident, but as a recurring risk to the brand and licensed sales chain. The outcome of these proceedings will be important not only for NASCAR but also for other sports organizations that rely on online sales of official merchandise and must simultaneously fight against fake stores, marketplace accounts, and advertising that leads buyers toward unauthorized products.
Sources:
- Justia Dockets & Filings – data on the case National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC v. the individuals, corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, and unincorporated associations identified on Schedule A, filed on April 16, 2026, before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (link)
- Justia Dockets & Filings – court docket in the case National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A Hereto, including the order on electronic service and default judgment (link)
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois / court complaint in the case National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, case 1:25-cv-08611, filed on July 25, 2025 (link)
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection – FY 2021 IPR Factsheet on seizures of goods infringing intellectual property rights and the estimated value of seized counterfeits (link)
- OECD and European Union Intellectual Property Office – report Mapping Global Trade in Fakes 2025: Global Trends and Enforcement Challenges on the value and patterns of global trade in counterfeit and pirated goods (link)
- NASCAR – official history of the organization and context of the development of the NASCAR brand (link)