Repo Revenge: How One Woman Drove Off with a Dealership’s Name

Repo Revenge: How One Woman Drove Off with a Dealership’s Name

In a case that has captivated legal observers and consumers alike, a Lima, Ohio woman turned the tables on a local car dealership after her vehicle was repossessed—by legally claiming the dealership’s name. A dispute between Tiah McCreary and Taylor Kia of Lima has evolved from a consumer complaint into a broader legal battle over tradename ownership, arbitration rights, and corporate accountability.

In February 2024, Tiah McCreary purchased a 2022 Kia K5 from Taylor Kia of Lima, a dealership operated by Taylor Cadillac and the Taylor Automotive Group, which runs several dealerships across northwest Ohio. The transaction appeared routine: McCreary signed a buyer’s order, loan agreement, and other documents, and drove off with the vehicle. 

However, the financing—arranged through Global Lending Services (GLS)—fell through. GLS later determined that McCreary’ s income was insufficient to support the loan. Without the necessary funding, the dealership repossessed the vehicle on March 29, 2024, while McCreary was at work.

This abrupt repossession prompted McCreary to investigate her legal options. What she discovered would set the stage for an atypical legal confrontation.

While researching the dealership, McCreary found that the Ohio Secretary of State had canceled the registration for the tradename “Taylor Kia of Lima.” Seizing the opportunity, she registered the name under her own name, effectively taking legal ownership of the dealership’s identity.

She then sent a cease-and-desist letter to Taylor Cadillac, demanding they stop using the name “Taylor Kia of Lima,” which she argued was now legally hers. This move was not only bold—it was legally valid under Ohio law, which allows individuals to register tradenames that are not actively maintained by previous owners. 

In June 2024, McCreary filed a civil complaint in Allen County Common Pleas Court against Taylor Cadillac, alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, among other claims. Taylor Automotive Group responded by invoking an arbitration clause, arguing that McCreary had agreed to settle disputes privately when she signed the purchase documents.

Judge Jeffrey Reed of the Common Pleas Court agreed and dismissed the case, sending it to arbitration. But McCreary wasn’t done.

She appealed the decision to the Ohio Third District Court of Appeals, arguing that the arbitration clause was invalid or improperly applied. While the appellate court upheld the arbitration clause for the vehicle purchase, it made a critical distinction: the tradename dispute was not part of the consumer transaction and therefore not subject to arbitration. 

As Judge J. Willamowski stated on behalf of the three-judge panel: “Since this claim does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, this claim should not have been dismissed and sent to arbitration.”

This ruling returned the tradename dispute to the trial court, allowing McCreary to pursue her claim in a public forum.

With the tradename dispute now back in trial court, the outcome remains uncertain. Taylor Cadillac may attempt to reclaim the name, possibly arguing that McCreary acted in bad faith or that its common law trademark rights to the name, based on actual use, trumps the state tradename registration that McCreary now owns. 

In addition to relying on potential common law trademark rights, if the name “Taylor Kia of Lima” is being used in interstate commerce, it might make sense for the dealership to consider seeking federal trademark protection to its name.

Significantly, common law trademark rights and federal trademark rights differ primarily in how they are established and enforced. Common law trademark rights arise automatically when a business uses a mark in commerce, even without registration. These rights are limited to the geographic area where the mark is used and recognized by consumers. In contrast, federal trademark rights are granted through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Federal registration provides broader protections, including nationwide priority, the ability to use the ® symbol, and access to federal courts for enforcement. While common law rights offer basic protection, federal registration significantly strengthens a trademark holder’s legal position.

On the other hand, the name “Taylor Kia of Lima” may be considered “merely descriptive” by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, making federal registration more challenging.  Under U.S. trademark law, a term is considered “merely descriptive” if it directly conveys an immediate idea of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, or purpose of the goods or services it represents—without requiring imagination or thought to understand. For example, calling a brand of apple juice “Sweet Apple” may be merely descriptive because it describes the product’s taste and content. Merely descriptive marks are not eligible for federal trademark registration on the Principal Register unless they acquire “secondary meaning”—meaning consumers have come to associate the term specifically with the source of the product rather than the product itself. This rule helps prevent businesses from monopolizing common language that competitors may need to describe their own goods.

Meanwhile, McCreary continues to assert her ownership of the name, and the dealership must navigate the reputational and operational challenges of the ongoing litigation.

The takeaway for businesses such as Taylor Cadillac is to make sure it maintains its various name registrations, whether they be obtained at a state or federal level, as well as seeking federal trademark protection independently of more limited state protection when feasible.  There is also a risk to an overreliance on arbitration clauses, which may not cover all disputes.

On the other hand, if one is a consumer, it is important to know your rights under consumer protection laws, as well as the possible value of investigating corporate filings and other public records to identify strategic opportunities to impose leverage that may not otherwise be available.  

Michael Stewart is a founding member of Fishman Stewart. He has worked in a wide range of technical areas including information technology, e-commerce, telecommunications, and mechanical, aerospace, computer, and nuclear engineering. His practice includes domestic and foreign patent prosecution, e-commerce and information technology, patent opinions, intellectual property litigation, domestic and foreign trademark prosecution, trademark opinions, copyrights, trade secrets, rights of publicity, intellectual property evaluations/due diligence and drafting and negotiating technology and intellectual property agreements. Check out his full bio here.