The Baseball Doesn’t Exist lawsuit is a federal trademark and copyright case filed in August 2025 by Cooperstown Dreams Park against YouTuber Joey Duffield over a critical video he posted about the upstate New York youth baseball complex. The case sits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, and as of mid-2026 it is frozen while the court weighs Duffield’s motion to dismiss.
The Video Behind the Suit
The complaint targets a single video published on the Baseball Doesn’t Exist YouTube channel, titled “Cooperstown, Where 12 Year Olds Dreams Go To Die.” The channel, run by Duffield through Baseball Doesn’t Exist LLC, produces commentary-style videos about baseball culture and institutions. This one took a critical look at Cooperstown Dreams Park, which hosts week-long invitational tournaments for twelve-and-under teams.1Bloomberg Law. NY Baseball Complex Sues YouTuber Over Trademarks, Copyrights
According to the complaint, the video prominently displays the park’s registered trademarks and includes excerpts from copyrighted footage the park owns, including clips from tournament highlight reels and promotional material.
What the Park Is Claiming
The case is captioned Cooperstown Properties, LLC v. Duffield, No. 6:25-cv-01079, filed August 12, 2025. The plaintiffs are Cooperstown Properties, LLC and Cooperstown Dreams Park, Inc. The defendants are Baseball Doesn’t Exist LLC and Duffield personally.2CourtListener. Cooperstown Properties, LLC v. Duffield
The complaint brings two sets of claims. The trademark count alleges violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, based on Duffield’s unauthorized use of the park’s registered marks. The complaint identifies four trademark registrations at issue, including the “Cooperstown Dreams Park” word mark and associated design elements.3PACER Monitor. Cooperstown Properties, LLC et al v. Duffield et al The copyright count alleges the video incorporated footage owned by the park, drawn in part from tournament highlight reels and promotional material distributed through the park’s Dreams Park TV service.2CourtListener. Cooperstown Properties, LLC v. Duffield
District Judge Elizabeth C. Coombe is presiding, with Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric handling pretrial matters.
Where the Case Stands
After an extension, Duffield filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on October 10, 2025. The motion came with a memorandum of law, a defense declaration, and exhibits that included transcriptions and video files. The specific legal arguments in the memorandum are not publicly available in the docket materials reviewed, but the exhibit list is consistent with a fair use and First Amendment defense.3PACER Monitor. Cooperstown Properties, LLC et al v. Duffield et al
On October 14, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lovric stayed the Rule 16 scheduling conference and all related deadlines indefinitely while the motion is pending. The plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 31, 2025, and Duffield replied on November 7, 2025. The court has not ruled. Until it does, the case will not move into discovery or any other pretrial phase.3PACER Monitor. Cooperstown Properties, LLC et al v. Duffield et al
How Fair Use Doctrine Could Shape the Outcome
Copyright suits against YouTubers over critical or commentary videos have a track record in federal court, and it tends to favor the creators. The closest precedent is Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, decided in 2017 in the Southern District of New York. A filmmaker sued Ethan and Hila Klein of h3h3productions over a video that lampooned his content. The court granted summary judgment for the Kleins, calling their video “quintessential criticism and comment.” Even though the Kleins used substantial portions of the original, the court found the amount was necessary for the critique and that the commentary could not substitute in the market for the original work.2CourtListener. Cooperstown Properties, LLC v. Duffield
A similar result came out of Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., decided in 2015 by a Central District of California court, which found fair use for 18 of 19 viral clips used in commentary episodes because the creator added jokes and critique that recontextualized the footage. The four statutory fair use factors are the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect on the market for the original. Commentary and criticism that add something new, what courts call transformative use, tend to fare well.
For Duffield, the practical questions are how much original commentary the video adds against how much park footage it uses, and whether the park’s trademarks appear in a way that suggests endorsement or simply identifies the subject of the critique. Those questions are what Judge Coombe will need to work through, at least at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Who Cooperstown Dreams Park Is
Cooperstown Dreams Park is a 165-acre youth baseball complex near the village of Cooperstown, New York, founded in 1996. It runs week-long invitational tournaments for twelve-and-under teams across a summer season and produces copyrighted video content through its Dreams Park TV service, selling game footage to families.4Cooperstown Dreams Park. Cooperstown Dreams Park Official Site It holds multiple federal trademark registrations for the “Cooperstown Dreams Park” name and logo and claims trademark rights over marketing slogans it uses.5Justia Trademarks. Cooperstown Dreams Park Trademark Registration Those registrations and that video library are the intellectual property the current lawsuit is built on.