Logossou v. Advancepierre Foods, Inc.
Citations
- 2019 Ohio 363
Syllabus
CIV.R. 12(B)(6) – NEGLIGENCE – EMPLOYER INTENTIONAL TORT – R.C. 2745.01: Where plaintiff employee suffered a severe hand injury when a coworker activated a mixing machine, the trial court erred in dismissing under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) the employee's negligent-inspection claim against two companies hired by the employer to inspect the machine and to ensure that it had the required guards where the employee alleged in his complaint that his employer had a duty to ensure the safety of the equipment at his workplace, the employer had contracted that duty away to the companies, and the companies had failed to exercise reasonable care in inspecting the machine. The trial court erred in dismissing under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) the employee's R.C. 2745.01 intentional-tort claim against his employer, because the allegations that the employer had actual knowledge that barrier guards were required for the mixing machine, the employer had removed barrier guards from the mixing machine, and, despite the danger, had required the employee to operate the mixing machine without the guards, stated a claim for relief with sufficient particularity to satisfy the heightened pleading standard set forth in Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 532 N.E.2d 753 (1998), and its progeny.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reasoning that the mark BAYSIDE BREEZE was weaker because the word “Breeze” is used in many third-party marks
- explaining that a New York “unfair competition claim turn[s] on a likelihood of consumer confusion”
- listing that type of evidence, among others, as supporting a determination of acquired distinctiveness
- applying de novo review to district court’s grant of summary judgment, based on determination of whether trademark-infringement plaintiff demonstrated likelihood of confusion
- finding federally registered, incontestable marks are entitled to “significant protection” and conducting the degree of inherent distinction analysis
- noting “tens of millions of dollars” in sales and “widespread recognition” in finding acquired distinctiveness of plaintiff’s “Black Ice” products despite “the fact that the words ‘black’ and ‘ice’ appear in the marks on other air fresheners”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Deters
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.