Appeals court rules trial court must hear dispute over car dealership trade name.

Appeals court rules trial court must hear dispute over car dealership trade name.

A Lima, Ohio, car dealership seized a buyer’s car. She, in turn, seized the dealership’s name.

The dealership insisted the matter be settled by arbitration. The Third District Court of Appeals ruled recently that the dispute about who owns the rights to the name Taylor Kia of Lima should remain in trial court.

Taylor Cadillac and the Taylor Automotive Group operate several dealerships in northwest Ohio. In 2012, the dealership began conducting a portion of its operation under the trade name Taylor Kia of Lima.

In February 2024, Tiah McCreary went to Taylor Kia in search of a vehicle. She selected a car and met with the finance manager, Justin Nance. Nance had McCreary sign a series of documents to purchase a 2022 Kia K5. Some of the documents required McCreary’s electronic signature, including an agreement to settle legal matters with Taylor Automotive Group through binding arbitration.

Nance helped McCreary arrange vehicle financing through Global Lending Services (GLS). While at the lot, GLS preliminarily approved a loan for McCreary, and she drove off with the K5. Subsequently, GLS concluded there was not enough available information to finalize the loan. A month after she bought the car, while McCreary was at work, Taylor Kia repossessed the vehicle.

Angry Customer Finds Company Name up for Grabs
While evaluating her legal options against the dealership, McCreary discovered 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. McCreary decided to register Taylor Kia of Lima in her name.

McCreary then sent a cease-and-desist letter to Taylor Cadillac,  addressing its continued use of the Taylor Kia name now that it was registered to her.

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.

Taylor Cadillac responded by requesting the matter be settled by arbitration rather than in trial court because McCreary signed the arbitration agreement when she bought the car. The court agreed and dismissed the case, so that it could proceed to arbitration.

McCreary appealed to the Third District.

Appeals Court Analyzed Dealership Agreement
McCreary presented several arguments to the Third District as to why the entire matter should remain in common pleas court. The Third District found that McCreary did consent to arbitration with Taylor Cadillac through the documents she signed or permitted the dealership to electronically sign.

However, the appeals court took a different view of McCreary’s claim that the use of the name Taylor Kia of Lima was not subject to arbitration.

Writing for the Third District, Judge John Willamowski stated that a person cannot be required to submit to arbitration for any dispute that the person has not agreed to submit. To determine if McCreary agreed to arbitrate the naming rights, the court examined the agreements McCreary signed with the dealership.

The court noted the arbitration agreement included any disputes “arising out of or in any way related to this consumer transaction.” The transaction, Judge Willamowski stated, was the purchase of a vehicle. The use of the company name wasn’t related to the purchase of the car, the appeals court concluded.

“Since this claim does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, this claim should not have been dismissed and sent to arbitration,” the Third District concluded.

The Third District reversed the common pleas court’s decision regarding the name dispute and remanded the case to the common pleas court for further proceedings.

Judges Juergen A. Waldick and William R. Zimmerman joined Judge Willamowski’s opinion.

McCreary v. Taylor Cadillac, Inc., 2025-Ohio-2562

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.