Osmic v. Sutula
Citations
- 201 N.E.3d 975
- 2022 Ohio 4216
Syllabus
Writ of Prohibition subject-matter jurisdiction standing jurisdiction litigation immunity The First Amendment adequate remedy at law sua sponte dismissal. Relators complaint for writ of prohibition and application for peremptory writ of prohibition were sua sponte dismissed and denied, respectively. Relators' could not possibly succeed based on the allegations made in the complaint that respondent judges lacked subject-matter jurisdiction based on a claim that a plaintiff in an underlying action lacked standing. Further, respondents were not exercising or about to exercise judicial power in a case pending in Lake County Common Pleas Court, precluding relief in prohibition as to that case.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that plaintiff’s alleged mark lacked secondary meaning when the alleged infringement occurred
- granting summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims finding that plaintiff’s marks had not attained secondary meaning
- granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant and concluding that, although the mark’s inherent distinctiveness was a “close call,” the mark was ultimately weak and there was “no evidence in the record . . . that consumers associated the mark with plaintiff or his company”
- evidence that numerous companies used plaintiff's mark, and that none did so to capitalize off of his reputation, undermined his claim of secondary meaning
- “[T]o support a finding of secondary meaning, such advertising must have reached the targeted audience.”
- “Under New York law, the elements necessary to prevail on causes of action for trademark infringement and unfair competition . . . mirror the Lanham Act Claims.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Celebrezze
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.