Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Soro v. Citicorp

EDITOR'S NOTE

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY

AT THE TIME OF FILMING. IF AND WHEN A

BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE

WILL BE ISSUED,

CS ee oo —

RR Fe

py wn) Win Mw UNTNI) STAT CS

UY ma ut AiR M% JN Da av Jsahi Lv

nN wyra* my 3 ‘ OC) <) (

vy w/e oR Lima {99 ;

>IT. a, 10 ae Fn m af. 18>¢8

iLdliw Ms aun As A/ A PSTITIUNERS

.are um

,rn 1 . oe - ee TAs? ,

CITICURP VIM GAT CUPPA LitUe

¥ + ROT | ied ’ . \ wr

g42 Vi’ rp 4 ie Siase 9 i Tey ae Sa 1

‘

ywrTNT ' ' f Y “VIX DMT «1

} STITIUN POR wRia vs CsantilnaAns

1) m ' I mn , rem

WOR Daaee S6e0.04 "2 eet vs 7 aA

‘

r TY t von OB wT non rn] A r

/ be my ,

nop Ge Se oP SV PrUum wid L sonid JitlAcild

luv aw Le wo ‘

‘

‘ Ormmityn s o° .

sph uN wsJIN.wAuG UU.

-~

39 ;- Alton Road

MIAMI BSACH, FLA. 33'3

(305) 674-1425

Supreme Court, U.

EFILEQ

QOSEPH F. SPANIOM,

; CLERK

rr reer eC See SCS SP SHE 8 ESS SSS aS 5 alia LDP LP LDL Pe De Me BREF IRI RRR BB RRR TT ee

‘

‘

+

4

—

_

‘

a

: :

c. =

4

s es

-3

‘

4

FLA .

5

b

ACt

,

TTAMT Ps

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals for

the 11 Circuit erred in afferming the opinon of

the Honorable District Court in not holding the

term "citicorp" GENERIC, INVALID, FRAUDULENTLY

OBTAINED, UNENFORCABLE, FATALLY WEAR and

EXTENSEVELY USED BY THOUSANDS OF FLORIDA CORP-

oratioms and failed to Cancel the registration

# (9827066) as provided by 15 U.S.C.§ 1119

McCarthy suprag 12:18 at 441-42 and failed to

observe that confusion between service marks

and similarty of appearance is determined on

the basis of the total effectof the designation

rather that on a comparision of individual

features.

2. Whether the Honorable Court of Apeals for

the 11 Circuit error in afferming the opinion of

the Honorable District Court when it abused its

discretion in the order signed which states that

the counter claims filed by Soro are dismissed

as untimely and. for lack of standing and failed

to realize that this was the first and only time

I was offered to file them and request a jury

trial to prevent a massive debacle in Florida.

3. Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals for

the 11 Circuit abused its discreation in granting

Respondent's summary judgment filed out of time.

[a

TASLE CF CUNTANTS

iPEMICNS BRROW. . . 1 et ww ee —

IUNTSDICTIOM 4

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RROVISIONS I?

STATEMENT OF THE CASE... .

RYASUNS POR GRAVTING THs axl? .

CONCLUSION * . . . . * . . . . . . . .

jt

if

TAALS JF ALUTMORITI 4:

OTITLOT Bank v.

SUNTHUS? tank ¢

97-13 14-Civ]= ALi (tiwi;

Chase Fedewl ian: yy.

Chase Manhattan “‘ank G

Rim 1E§P—-Civewti (Miwi)

Conmtinent«sl Sank Corp. v.

The state of Florida Q

Supreme Court ¢ B7- 1955

Cummins Sngine Co. Ine. Y.

Continental Motors Corp. & the Cancelled ¢

tradename “TU }) DIESSL"

359 Fr. °d 892,994, 53 Le 1967, tte q i +)

sidelity cond and Mortauwre Co. vy. 7

Fidelity cond and Mortgage Co. of Teras

37 #272 OF (Sth Cir. 1950)

first Southern Seleral Saviage and Lean Asso Vag

First Southern Jiwings ait Loan Aan.

214 ¥.2d 71,74 “th cir. 1A)

-iurphy Door Bed Co. v 7

urphy d Ce.

(2nd Cir 198°)

Steak « srew Inc. v. 7

Seef « jres

379 FP. Supp. 1939 (1974)

wzun dank vy.

Jun Yeders? 7

ah F.2d. 331 (5th Cir. 1981)

Surf Club v.

Tatona Surf Shee

1§1 Pla. 406 10 So. 2d 554-557 , 19.47)

iy

ees Scismeamaiibcesioneli

IM THE SUPREME COURT

or, THB

UNITSD STATES uF AMERICA

LUIS A. SURO A/K/A

*7

CITICURP MORTGAGS CO. INC. PETITION sR

versus

Citicorp <T. AL.,

RaSPOND-NT

ee ee ee eee me cee eee -

PSTITION POR WRIT SF CeRTIONAKT TO THe

UNITED STATSS COURT UF APP sALS

72 THE ELSVENTH CIRCUIT

SO me mm ———— orm -

PETITIONER, Luis A. Soro A/K/A CITICURP

MORTGAGE COMPANY INC. Respectfull; ora. a tint

a wrt of certiorari issue to review the

5 vv

judgment and opinion of the gonorable United

wtates Court of Jopeals for the vlevent!

‘- PUD ett vee

Ciccuit afférning the Uuvrer Uoirt's 2,

2

Mo APPANDICKG

the Unpublished writted opinion

of the Gaurt of appeats

The Lnpublished written opinion

Of the District Court for the

Southern District of florida

fhe unpublished written opinion

of the Court of Appeals yleventh

Circuit denice) cf a petition for

a rehearing

3

Respondant has a generic and invalid term

and they have changed their name in Florid: to

Citibank. I Luis A. Soro have not had a fair

trial in front of a jury and Respondant poses

an enormous threat to the entire banking system

here in Florida if they are permitted to remain

in Florida. Respondant has violated Federal and

Florida banking laws and rules, and will continue

to do so unless they are stopped and directed out

of Florida. I am Respectfully requesting that I

be able to face my accuser in a court of law just

like the SIX (6) amedment to the U.S. Constition

says.

Opinions BFELUW

The opinion of the Court of APPeals which was

written but unpublished appears in Appendix A to

this Petition. The Unpublished written opinion

of tne District Court for the Southern District o1

Florida appears in Appendix B to this petition.

The denial of a re-hearing appears in Appendix C.

4

JURISDICTION

The Court of Appeals' Upinion in this matter

was filed on February 23, 1990. A timely petition

for a re-hearing was filed on March 07, 1990.

The Court of Appeals' denial of the petition for

re-hearing was issued on March 26, 1990 and is

set forth in Appendix C. This Court's Juris-

diction is invoked under Title 28, U.S.C.% 1254

(1) and 28 U.S.C. 2101 (c).

CONSTITIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

I Luis A. Soro did not get a fair trial.

Respondent has harrassed me in a gargantuan

maner and I did not get my share of justice

under the law. Also the Six (6) amedment to

the L.S. Constitmdmon states that I will be

able to face my accuser in a court of law.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The United States District Court, for the

Southern District of Florida had jurisdiction

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C 1332 and because

S

this is a compulsory Counterclaim, venue is

proper in the District Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. G 1391.

un August 26, 1985 a complaint was filed in

the District Court for the Southern District of

Florida against CITICURP MORTGAGE CC. INC., for

alleged trademark infringing of a generic, unen

forcable, and cancellable term. On May 13, 1986

the summons was served on me Luis A. Soro. Un

January 14, 1987 an ammended complaint included

me Luis A. Soro personally as a party to the matter

was filed. Cn March 12,1987 Kespondent filed a moot

Motion for Summary Judgment filed out of time with

the time schedule ordered by the sionorable Judge

Eugene P, Spellman en December 19, 1986. The case

continued and on Sevtember 8, 1987 the Sumnary

Judgment was entered for Respondent on all Counts

against CTTICORP MORTGAGS CO. INC. AND me Luis A.

Soro personally. On Uctober 6, 1987 I appealled

G

the District Court's opinion to the Bleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals, on June 40, 1988 the

Court of Appeals reversed ani remanded the case

in part and dismissed in part. It did not

realize that I Luis A Soro was a/k/a CITICUR?

MORTGAGE CO. INC., anit therefore I could also

bring an appeal on behave of CTTICORP MURTGAGE

CO. INC.,. On October 6, 1988 the District Court

again granted the moot motion for summary judgment

without standing against me Luis A. Soro. I

again appealled the District Court's opinion

because it was providing protection to a generic,

invalid, unenforcable, fraudulently obtained,

fatally weak and extensevely used by thousands

of Florida corporations the term "citicorp".

Also the District Court's opinion was not

consistent with the case law that was provided.

Centrust Bank v. Suntrust sank, 87-1314-CIV-ALH

(Miami), Chase Federal 3ank v. Chase Manhattan

Bank 84-1642-CTV-WMH (Miami) Cummins kKngine Co.

Inc. v. Continental Motors Corp. & the CANCnLLED

trade name "Turbo DTESKL" 359 F. 2d 892,894, 53

” - =

7

C.C.P.A. 1167, 1169 (1966) Fédelity Yond and

Mortgage CO. v. Fidelity Bond and Mortgage Co.

of Texas 37 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1930) First

Southern Federal Saving® and Loan Association

v. First Souther Federal Savings and Loan

Association 614 F.2d 71,74 (5th Cir. 1986)

Murphy Door Bed Co. v. Murphy Bed Co. (2nd

Cir. 1989) Steak & 3Srew v. seef & Brew 370

FP. Supp. 1030 (1974) Sun Bank v. Sun Federal

G15 F.2d. 311 (5th Cir. 1991) Surf Club v.

Tatem Surf Club 151 Fla. 406 <-19 So. 2d 554

-557 (1942). Please notein all these cases

the parties have been able to keep their

names. My company name has been stolen from

me after I had had it for Seven 47) years and

in was registered in Florida to me. 1 am also

Respectfully requesting that this lionorable

Court return it to me. 1] am seeking compen-

sation for the gargantuan damages despondent

has caused me when they Breached a contract

‘

I had with the telephone Yellow pages. Please

see tne Penzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., case #

84-05905 (151st Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex.

Nov. 15, 1985) in which Pennzoil was awarded

10.53 Billion dollars for tortious interference

they suffered from Texaco. My case is very simi

-lar to the Penzoil case and I have exhausted all

my options in the lower Courts.

I am xHespectfully requesting that if this

Honorable Court elects not to address the issues

presented at this time, it remand the matter to

the Court of Appeals’ for a redermination of this

Court's opinion in the cases mentioned.

MPASOINS POX GRANTING THE wilT

C2RTICRARI SHOULD 35 GRANTSD FOR TWO RAASINS:

This petition presents an issue resolved by

implication by this Court but has not speci-

fically and unequivocally decided by this Court,

and the Cpinions below conflicts by implication

with previous decisions of this Court and with

q

the deeisions of other Circuits, The Courts

nave constently prevented a generic term from

being protected. See case law authorities

listed in this petition. Setting all this

aside Respondent is in very poor financial

condition and must be prevented from buyng

failed savings and loans and banks. I have

not recieved a fair trial and I should be able

to face my accuser in a court of law just like

the SIX(6) amedment to the U.S. Constitution

Says. Federal law and Floriia Laws related to

banking strickly prohibits bank holding companies

to establish a bank in Florida. I have been

Harrassed, intimidated, and threarenm and 1 have

done nothing wrong, all I did was form my corp-

oration in good faith and with clean hands and

with the approval of the Secretary of State of

Florida and the Florida Comptroller's office.

To continue I was here first and Plaintiff/

Counter Defendant/Respondent was barred from

Io.

entering the State of Florida. They want to

Steal my name in my area and this is not fair.

Respondent has caused me gargantuan damages and

this Honorable Court Should not tolerate this

massive abuse, and should review the relief

sought, the compensation that is requested and

that should be granted.

The Honorable District Court erred in fail

-ing to weigh the factors "identity of service

facilities and customers" the weakness of the

Marx, apparent fraud, and the fact that we have

traditionally tolerated a greated degree of

resemblance among the names of financial

institutions. This error was afférmed by the

sleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Furthermore

if there was no lik2lihood of confusion in this

case because kKespondent was barred from entering

the State of Florida, hence no trademark infring

ing could occure Wholly apart from that

“citicorp" is to weak a mark to merit trademark

If

protection. The Honorable Lower Courts failed

to apply trade regulation key #347 which states

in determining likelihood of confusion between

service marks, similarty of appearance is

ermined on the basis of the total effect of

features. In this service mark

. uction 1 have provided evidence of

sat +S _rd-party use of the words "citi or

fh

and corp or corporation used

rin the trade name and based

ision can be drawn with impres-

ience that there would be no likelihood

* confusion between the two marks, specially

ynen a service mark is itself weak, minor

additions may effectivelly negage any confu-

sing similarity.

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons stated above, a writ

of certiorari should be issued to review the

judgment and the opinion of the Court of Appeals

in this matter.

Ik

If this Honorable Court elects not to

address this writ at the present time, it

is requested that the writ issued and that the

matter be remanded to the Court of Appeals for

reaetermination in light of this Cour's opinion

in other cases.

a

Respectfully submitted

LUIS A. SORO A/K/A

CITICORP MORTGAGE CO INC.

1439 A-Alton Road

Miami Beach, Fla 33139

(305) 674-1425

La ait UNITsD STATES COURT OF APPiGALS

WY TI Va eIhs CI

oh wa . é i aes RCUIT

NQ. 838-5178

Citicorp,

Plaintifr®-Counterclain

LDefendant-A592llee

CiTICORP MORTGAGS CO. INC.,

Defendant

Jefendant-Counterclaim

Plaintiff-apnellant

Doeal from the United Jtates District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

ww oe ow we oe — ee we ee we ae we ee se — —_——— a — a

ON PeTIPION(S) FOR ReeSARIN

~-——

arch 26, 1990 }

‘

3573443: KRAVITCH, YA HATCH DS and ANDsRSON,

Cireuwit Judzes

> hes

The petition(s) for rehearing filled by

Li Typ TUM

Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF FLURIDA

44is SORO, an individual

Jefendant,

CASE NU. 85-2960

CIV-SpeuLMAN

SUMAARY FINAL JUDGMENT

THIS CAUS=S comes before the Court upon

Plaintiff Citicorp's (CITIC.HP) Motion for

Cunmary Judgment. This action was first brought

agains! ClLliCln? MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC. (CITICORP

MORTGACE). CITICORP MORTGAG= answered and sub-

sequently filed two counterclaims on ‘Xctober 4,

ocr Y

) Mareh ©, 1987, Plaintiff filed its

Amended Complaint aiding Defendant, LUIS SURO

‘SoR0") as a party defendant. 30th defendants

filed answers and affirmative defenses to that

Amended Complaint. Although Soro was represented

by counsel at that time, SOR) contiually attempted

file Motions in his own behalf and on behalf

USE OF NAME CITICORP

—

when this Court granted Summary Judgment

against CITICORP MOXTGAGS ON September 8, 1987,

CTTICORP MORTGAGE was directed to cease all .

infringing activities, to change the corporate

name and to deliver all infringing material for

destruction. This Court informed SOXO at the

Aligust 24, 1988, hearing that when the mandate

from the 11th Circuit was received, this Court .

would issue an Order directing SOHO, as the

representative of CITICORP MORTGAGE, to

initiate a change with regard to that name in

accordance with this Court's summary final

judgment. The Court went on to explicity

warn SORO that in the event that CITICOHxr

MORTGAGS failed to abide by that Order, this

Court would hold SOKO responsible and would

initiate contempt proceeding by way of civil

contempt against the officer to whom that Order

was and is directed, to wit, SORO. SOO was

told at that time that he would have ten (10)

days from the date of tnis Court's Order to

=

aes — - 2 - : _ - Se —— =

- SS See aa a a = ee a ae ee _——_ = ~ :

to Une Summary Judgment dated

iyo, ana ecnange the name of the

corporatition on the records of the Secretary

of Siate's uffice for the State of Florida.

.s received from the Sleventh

_boult on September 8, 1988. Therefore, SORO

ut vs from tne date of tnis JUrder to

.

: comply with this Court's instructions contained

in the September 8, 1988, Grder and given to

coust on August 24, 1988. Failure

. -) 49 SO will gesult in SORO being held in civil

cont Es

: Accordingly, it is hereby

JR)SR22D AND ADJUDGSD that the Plaintiff's

sues oul guiiacy Judgment is GRANTED. It is

Turtnaer UKDARSD that the Counterclaim filed by

is DISMIsssD as untimely, and for lack of

nding. Defendant SOROD, as sole stockholder

and officer of CITICORP MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.

a5 Avreoy directed to initiate a name change

.

ror VITICORP MORTGAGS and to comply with the

QO

itained in tnis Court's

‘zment dated September 8, 1987,

‘en (10) days of the date of this Order.

wiv Jwonisud in chambers at iMiami,

rida this 6 day of uct, 1988.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

el-of record

?

é

)

6

|

{9

\e

IN Tiis UNITED SYAT 2S COURL ot

APPIAGS POR THE SLEVENTH CIecUlt

—_

lo. 98-5178

Non-aArgument Calender

— a ee ee ee rm men ee ee ou . - a

Oo Docket NO. 95-2960-CIV- sor

Citicorp, Plaintiff-Comnter

Claim Jefend2ant-Adpelles,

versus

CITICIJRP MORTGAGE COMPANY INC.

Defendant,

Zuis A. Soro Defendant /Counter

Claim-Plaintiff-aoellent

.opeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Flori

Februar 23, 1990

Before kravitch, Hatchett, and ANDARSON, Circuit Judges.

Per CURIUMS

APWIRMSD. See Circuit Rule 36-1.