Dealership Repossesses Customer’s Car, Customer Responds by Taking Dealership’s Name

Database Error

You're right dawg
OG Investor
woman-watching-as-broken-down-car-is-towed-away-royalty-free-image-1753898513.pjpeg


An Ohio woman who had her car repossessed by the dealership last year even though she was approved for a loan found an unusual means of responding: since the dealer took her car, she decided to take their name. Now, according to a report by Court News Ohio, the case is headed to common pleas court.

According to court documents, Tiah McCreary went to Taylor Kia in February 2024, where she decided to purchase a 2022 Kia K5. The finance manager helped arrange financing through Global Lending Services (GLS), which preliminarily approved a loan for McCreary, so she was allowed to drive off in her K5. However, GLS later concluded there was not enough available information to finalize the loan, according to the documents — so, a month after buying the car, Taylor Kia repossessed the vehicle while McCreary was at work.

McCreary then began to explore her legal options. As it turned out, Taylor Cadillac and the Taylor Automotive Group operate several dealerships in northwest Ohio, and began to operate a portion of their business under the name Taylor Kia of Lima back in 2012. However, McCreary discovered that the registration of the name "Taylor Kia of Lima" had been canceled by the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office after Taylor Cadillac failed to submit a renewal application, according to court documents.

So, she registered Taylor Kia of Lima in her own name.

Once that was done, documents reveal she sent a cease-and-desist letter to Taylor Cadillac and informed them they could no longer use the Taylor Kia name because it was now registered to her. Then the legal battle started to heat up.

Court News Ohio states that “In June 2024, she filed a complaint against Taylor Cadillac and GLS in Allen County Common Pleas Court. She alleged the companies violated the Consumer Sales Practices Act, and she claimed fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment by the dealership. She also sought an injunction prohibiting Taylor Cadillac from transacting any business under the name Taylor Kia of Lima without her consent.”

During the initial car purchase, McCreary signed a document that was an agreement to settle legal matters with Taylor Automotive Group through binding arbitration. Taylor Cadillac said because of this that the case should be handled through arbitration and not trial court. The court agreed and dismissed the case, but McCreary was not giving up; she then appealed to the Third District.

The Third District ruled that although McCreary signed the agreement to settle legal matters through arbitration, that was limited to the transaction of the car sale. The claim to use the name "Taylor Kia of Lima" was not subject to arbitration, as it had nothing to do with the Kia purchase, so the Third District reversed the previous decision of the common pleas court to dismiss the case. The case is now headed back to common pleas court for further proceedings.


https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a...sess-customers-car-she-takes-dealership-name/
 
woman-watching-as-broken-down-car-is-towed-away-royalty-free-image-1753898513.pjpeg


An Ohio woman who had her car repossessed by the dealership last year even though she was approved for a loan found an unusual means of responding: since the dealer took her car, she decided to take their name. Now, according to a report by Court News Ohio, the case is headed to common pleas court.

According to court documents, Tiah McCreary went to Taylor Kia in February 2024, where she decided to purchase a 2022 Kia K5. The finance manager helped arrange financing through Global Lending Services (GLS), which preliminarily approved a loan for McCreary, so she was allowed to drive off in her K5. However, GLS later concluded there was not enough available information to finalize the loan, according to the documents — so, a month after buying the car, Taylor Kia repossessed the vehicle while McCreary was at work.

McCreary then began to explore her legal options. As it turned out, Taylor Cadillac and the Taylor Automotive Group operate several dealerships in northwest Ohio, and began to operate a portion of their business under the name Taylor Kia of Lima back in 2012. However, McCreary discovered that the registration of the name "Taylor Kia of Lima" had been canceled by the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office after Taylor Cadillac failed to submit a renewal application, according to court documents.

So, she registered Taylor Kia of Lima in her own name.

Once that was done, documents reveal she sent a cease-and-desist letter to Taylor Cadillac and informed them they could no longer use the Taylor Kia name because it was now registered to her. Then the legal battle started to heat up.

Court News Ohio states that “In June 2024, she filed a complaint against Taylor Cadillac and GLS in Allen County Common Pleas Court. She alleged the companies violated the Consumer Sales Practices Act, and she claimed fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment by the dealership. She also sought an injunction prohibiting Taylor Cadillac from transacting any business under the name Taylor Kia of Lima without her consent.”

During the initial car purchase, McCreary signed a document that was an agreement to settle legal matters with Taylor Automotive Group through binding arbitration. Taylor Cadillac said because of this that the case should be handled through arbitration and not trial court. The court agreed and dismissed the case, but McCreary was not giving up; she then appealed to the Third District.

The Third District ruled that although McCreary signed the agreement to settle legal matters through arbitration, that was limited to the transaction of the car sale. The claim to use the name "Taylor Kia of Lima" was not subject to arbitration, as it had nothing to do with the Kia purchase, so the Third District reversed the previous decision of the common pleas court to dismiss the case. The case is now headed back to common pleas court for further proceedings.


https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a...sess-customers-car-she-takes-dealership-name/
Them greedy idiot assholes tried to flex and showed bad faith now arbitration option will be off the table! Perfect! :roflmao:
 
Same thing happened with Sierra Mist
That was a ladies real name....she sued

It got up to like 3 million(?). She didnt settle!

They changed the name to Starry. She got nothing!

If I recall correctly...
AI Overview

There was no actual legal lawsuit between the Pepsi product Sierra Mist and the TikTok influencer Cierra Mistt; the viral story was a misunderstanding of trademark law. While Cierra Mistt did receive a cease and desist letter from PepsiCo, this was a standard procedure, as the influencer's name bore a strong resemblance to the brand. The discontinuation of Sierra Mist and its replacement with Starry was a strategic business decision by PepsiCo due to the drink's declining popularity, not the result of a legal battle.

What actually happened:
    • 1. Cease and Desist Letter:
      PepsiCo sent a cease and desist letter to Cierra Mistt because her username was similar to their well-known brand, which could cause consumer confusion.
    • 2. Misunderstanding of Trademark Law:
      Cierra Mistt and some social media users mistakenly believed that PepsiCo had lost their trademark for Sierra Mist, allowing her to claim ownership.
    • 3. Misinformation:
      The idea that Cierra Mistt had legally "taken" the Sierra Mist name and forced Pepsi to rebrand was a viral theory that was not factually accurate.
    • 4. Actual Rebrand:
      The rebranding of Sierra Mist to Starry was a business decision by PepsiCo to discontinue a less popular soda and introduce a new one, not a direct result of the influencer's actions.
    • 5. No Lawsuit:
      Although there was an exchange of letters, there was no formal lawsuit filed or won by Cierra Mistt against PepsiCo. PepsiCo continues to own the trademarks for Sierra Mist.
 
Back
Top