(Entered: 12/11/2009), Declaration of Jane Williams in Support of 42 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 0000002396 00000 n Thus, the Court concludes that "Sand Hill Advisors" is primarily geographically descriptive. Plaintiff does not address, let alone dispute, Defendant's contention that neither party has evinced any intention to expand its business into the other's market. At Sand Hill, we have long-standing experience with RSUs, deferred compensation, and specialized tax IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION to Of Frank D. Rorie JR. A subscription to PACER is required. Id. Unlike Plaintiff, Defendant does not provide any advice to any third party, and has no involvement in providing wealth management services. Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 769, 112 S.Ct. View latest Form ADV filed Part 2 Brochures Part 3 Relationship Summary. 1979). at 769, 112 S.Ct. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital 85. 's Opp'n to Def. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, 7/8/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ADAM B. The Court therefore addresses each prong of the test for service mark infringement to ascertain whether summary judgment is appropriate based on the record presented. B.) 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Headquarters Regions San Francisco Bay Area, Silicon Valley, West Coast. Last Updated January 6, 2019 at 8:27 PM EST (4.3 years ago). With regard to the need test, the court noted that given the remoteness of the association between "collection" and a shopping center, "a competing shopping *1115 center would not need to use the term `collection' in order to identify its own shopping center." F at 2.) 28 U.S.C. Co., Inc. v. Enco Mfg. Here, the services offered by Plaintiff and Defendant are fundamentally distinct. Plaintiff surmises that Mr. Hill was not being truthful and posits that he must have known about Plaintiff when he was securing Defendant's domain name. WebOn February 24th, 2023, Sand Hills Chief Investment Officer, Brenda Vingiello, CFA, joined the CNBC Halftime Report panel to share her view on consumer strength in the current market environment. No one has written a summary of this case yet. Id. J. at 16, Dkt. <<4841BC4BF8452A4DA9F87B341F4BADE3>]>> (McCaffrey Depo. 0000005059 00000 n 15 U.S.C. 5 and Ex. (Id. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2009) (Entered: 03/05/2009), STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER. 0000000596 00000 n (Williams Decl. However, the cited deposition excerpts of Gary Conway, one of Plaintiff's founders, do not support Defendant's argument. Summary. Id. Plaintiff provides no analysis or legal authority for its position. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2010). Rodeo Collection, 812 F.2d at 1218. Notice of Settlement Conference and Settlement Conference Order for 1/13/2010 02:00 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. 2753. Forschner Group, Inc. v. Arrow Trading Co., Inc., 30 F.3d 348, 355 (2d Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Id. 7-1(b). In addition, Defendant asserts that the only reason Plaintiff commenced this action was to obtain the right to register its mark with the California Secretary of State. That leaves "descriptive" marks, which are not considered inherently distinctive because *1113 they define a particular characteristic of a product in a way that does not require any exercise of the imagination. at 24:1-14.) 578, 581-82 (S.D.N.Y.1972) addressed the issue of "use" to determine which party could establish priority to claim ownership of the mark. On November 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in this Court, alleging a single claim for service mark infringement under the Lanham Act. q Given that Plaintiff and Defendant used the same mark in the same general geographical area, Plaintiff's position that the parties' simultaneous use of the SAND HILL ADVISORS mark was likely to cause confusion was certainly arguable. 0000001296 00000 n Although it is clear from a plain reading of 2(f) that it does not apply to unregistered marks, Defendant did not specifically make such an argument. Def. (Entered: 12/28/2009), *** FILED IN ERROR. See Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d 1062, 1076 (9th Cir.2006). (Miller, Katherine) (Filed on 1/28/2009) Modified on 1/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE to be held between 01/13/10 ant 01/22/10; Case Referred to Mediation. Thane Int'l, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 305 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir.2002). 69, Filing Given Plaintiff's concession that the parties' customers are sophisticated and are unlikely to confuse the two companies, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff first argues that it is entitled to a presumption of secondary meaning under section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Ex. (Hill Decl. (Entered: 01/22/2010), STIPULATION and Proposed Order re Pretrial Schedule, by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. However, the mark "Sand Hill Advisors" leaves little to the imagination. "This acquired distinctiveness is generally called `secondary meaning.'" 2. WebVenture Capital. In a trademark infringement action, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the defendant use of the same or similar mark is likely to cause confusion based upon consideration of the factors set forth in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 448-49 (9th Cir. 1995). (Dhillon, Jas) (Filed on 1/29/2009) Modified on 1/30/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2010). 0000005571 00000 n Sciences v. eBay, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 969 (9th Cir.2007). (Entered: 01/28/2009), ADR Certification (ADR L.R. BOSTON - Boston Private Financial Holdings Inc. said Monday that it had agreed to acquire Sand Hill Advisors Inc., an investment advisory firm in Menlo Park, Calif., for about $16 million. For these reasons, Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Evidence Offered in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket 45) are denied as moot. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. % Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/20/09. Plaintiff admittedly has no expert survey to support its claim of secondary meaning, but instead, relies entirely on evidence that it used the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark in its marketing and advertising efforts. Vision Sports, Inc. v. Melville Corp., 888 F.2d 609, 615 (9th Cir. at 68:4-6.) Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm't Inc., 581 F.3d 1138, 1145 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted, emphasis added). Pl. The party seeking a fee award bears the burden of proving exceptional circumstances by "compelling proof." Under that standard, the Court is persuaded that "Sand Hill Advisors" means exactly what it says: It describes a geographic location where Plaintiff offers advisory services. at 68:25-69:25; 79:1-12.) 's Mot. Plaintiff is a self-styled "wealth management" firm currently located in Menlo Park, California. 4.) Messrs. Sandell and Hill filed their Limited Liability Company Articles of Organization with the California Secretary of State on April 27, 1999. (Id.). (Id. DocketAnswer; Filed by: Adam B. Neither party discusses the threshold question of whether section 2(f) is germane in an infringement case where the mark is unregistered. B, Williams Depo. Sand Hill Advisors LLC: Defendant: Sand Hill Advisors LLC: Case Number: 4:2008cv05016: Filed: November 4, 2008: Court: US District Court for the Northern District WebIAPD provides information on Investment Adviser firms regulated by the SEC and/or state securities regulators. "Marks are often classified in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness; . The messaging organization is providing a sandbox for developers to enable cross-border transactions for central bank digital currencies, an elusive goal as most central banks focus on domestic use. The record unequivocally establishes that Plaintiff and Defendant's respective businesses share little, if anything, in common. As such, other advisory companies are more likely to refer to "Sand Hill" and "Advisors" in describing or advertising their services. The greater the similarity between the two marks at issue, the greater the likelihood of confusion. And how much will banks have to pay? And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! Banks react to Fed report. In addition, the record does not support Defendant's assertion that the only reason Plaintiff filed suit was to "force it to surrender its business registration" in California. 78(b); N.D. Cal. 4 and Ex. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. Ex. 2505. endstream endobj 34 0 obj<> endobj 35 0 obj<> endobj 36 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/ExtGState<>>> endobj 37 0 obj<> endobj 38 0 obj<> endobj 39 0 obj[/ICCBased 46 0 R] endobj 40 0 obj<> endobj 41 0 obj<> endobj 42 0 obj<> endobj 43 0 obj<>stream 33 15 The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, which are summarized herein as they are pertinent to the issues that remain before this Court. (Entered: 12/11/2009), OBJECTIONS to 38 Declaration of Albert R. Hill in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. On November 19, 2009, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. See Brookfield Commc'ns, 174 F.3d at 1056 (likelihood of confusion resulting from the use of the same or similar mark was "remote" if the parties "did not compete" with one another); Dynamics Research Corp. v. Langenau Mfg. Ex. Nor is it disputed that Plaintiff does not engage in the sale, purchase or lease of any commercial properties. 9.) Evidence that use of a mark or name has already caused actual confusion as to the source of a product or service is "persuasive proof that future confusion is *1121 likely." DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Adam B. She testified that such mark was chosen because of its geographical reference, since they worked and lived in that area, and were active in the community. 0000002831 00000 n *** EXHIBITS re 48 Declaration Rachel R. Davidson in Support, CORRECTION OF DOCKET #[48-3] filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 84. Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and As the Magistrate correctly found, Mr. Conway merely stated that he recalled having raised the issue of seeking trademark protection with co-founder Jane Williams and the company's outside counsel. The adviser's REGISTRATION status is listed below. 13.) (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/15/2008) Modified on 12/16/2008 (cjl, COURT STAFF). 64. WebDefendant Sand Hill Advisors LLCs stipulation to amend its Answer to assert additional Affirmative Defenses challenging Plaintiffs legal capacity and standing to bring its HWv6}WGj}I-Y]Ih RdJRx>#wHY 8}9|n{oXxlW0A(x{3|ZUzjlWgQ?mf7Es2P2AB& nwdse%7YPI*eoFH1GI!| endstream endobj 11 0 obj<> endobj 12 0 obj<> endobj 13 0 obj<> endobj 14 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/ExtGState<>>> endobj 15 0 obj<> endobj 16 0 obj<> endobj 17 0 obj<> endobj 18 0 obj[/ICCBased 27 0 R] endobj 19 0 obj[20 0 R 21 0 R 22 0 R 23 0 R] endobj 20 0 obj<>stream REFER TO DOCUMENT 50 . This argument is based on nothing but sheer speculation, which is not evidence. *1112 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 0000012780 00000 n No one has written a summary of this case yet. trailer Pursuant to Local Rule 3-16 (Miller, Katherine) (Filed on 2/2/2009) (Entered: 02/02/2009), Certificate of Interested Entities by Sand Hill Advisors LLC Pursuant to Local Rule 3-16 (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 1/30/2009) (Entered: 01/30/2009), ***ERRONEOUS ENTRY, PLEASE REFER TO DOCUMENT 19 *** Certificate of Interested Entities by Sand Hill Advisors LLC Pursuant to Local Rule 3-16 (Miller, Katherine) (Filed on 1/30/2009) Modified on 2/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). A case is not exceptional simply because the court granted summary judgment; otherwise, every Lanham Act case in which a summary judgment motion was granted would be considered an "exceptional" case. "The Legislative History of the Lanham Act points out that where a logical connection can be made between the product and the geographical term, the term is geographically descriptive" Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc., 871 F.2d 590, 595 (6th Cir.1989); e.g., In re Wada, 194 F.3d 1297, 1299-1300 (Fed.Cir.1999) (affirming PTO ruling that "New York Ways Gallery" was primarily geographically descriptive because "NEW YORK is not an obscure geographical term and that it is known as a place where the goods at issue here are designed, manufactured, and sold."). 's Mot. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. Id. at 132:16-24, 134:7-10. 636(b)(1); see Fed.R.Civ.P 72(b). 2005). Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion, accompanied by objections to certain of the evidence offered by Defendant in support of its motion. Filing 92. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2010) Modified on 1/26/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2009) Modified on 2/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Opp'n at 22.) 0000001201 00000 n To that end, Plaintiff selected "Sand Hill Advisors" because it reflected the firm's location and allowed it to capitalize on the "cache" associated with that area, which is known for its concentration of venture capital firms. Indeed, Mr. Conway admitted that Defendant is not a competitor of Plaintiff. Defendant next argues that even if Plaintiff could demonstrate that it has a protectable mark, Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant's use of the identical mark is likely to cause consumer confusion. (Opp'n at 22-23.) 0000002317 00000 n 0000004838 00000 n 's Mot. Continue reading Be the first to find this review helpful 0000004889 00000 n That section states, in relevant part, as follows: "The Director may accept as prima facie evidence that the mark has become distinctive, as used on or in connection with the applicant's goods in commerce, proof of substantially exclusive and continuous use thereof as a mark by the applicant in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made." Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. Here, there is scant evidence of actual confusion, which weighs in favor of Defendant. Id. Civ. Ex. at 8-9. An issue of fact is "material" if, under the substantive law of the case, resolution of the factual dispute might affect the outcome of the claim. However, the issue was not as simple as Defendant now purports it to be. Because "Sand Hill Advisors" is descriptive, it is not entitled to protection unless it has acquired secondary meaning. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2008) (Entered: 11/06/2008), ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 2/3/2009. STIPULATION AND ORDER: To Allow Defendant to Amend Answer, Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 5/27/09. VIA TELEPHONE. United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). And so that was our address, but we felt it was an address that we wanted to trumpet. Notably, section 2(f) was neither addressed nor at issue in either case. Plaintiff attempts to analogize this case to Rodeo Collection, and argues that "Sand Hill Advisors" is suggestive, and not primarily geographically descriptive as claimed by Defendant. Ex. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992). Intern. This change was prompted by the decision of certain members of Plaintiff's management to reacquire equity from Boston Financial. 15 U.S.C. (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/12/2008) (Entered: 12/12/2008), CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Sand Hill Advisors LLC re 3 ADR Scheduling Order, 2 Summons Issued, 1 Complaint (Martin, James) (Filed on 11/10/2008) (Entered: 11/10/2008), REPORT on the filing of an action regarding Service Mark Infringement (cc: form mailed to register). The firm is the successor-in-interest to CLW Financial Services, Inc., a company founded in 1982 by Jane Williams, Gary Conway and Joseph Luongo. Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Adam B. at 22.) xb``f``b sT,PAABmgX$ Astra Pharm. A. degree from University of California , Santa Cruz and a B. xb```f``Zuxb 1}rx@Rl3g3%WvU3_eXM?dKn ti edPF ) X& b`l y6%I*'.&h,(a`H31Hu@ 2d Id. Com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1205 n. 3 (9th Cir.2000). Docket Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. startxref 2505 (internal citations omitted). On February 9, 2010, Defendant filed a motion for attorneys' fees, which was referred to Magistrate Judge James ("the Magistrate"). IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION to Of Frank D. Rorie JR. L.R. This is indicative of a descriptive mark. 47 0 obj<>stream Def. Where no "rational trier of fact" could find that a likelihood of confusion is "probable," the Court may grant summary judgment for the party accused of infringement. Finally, one place to get all the court documents we need. If the PTO approves the registration under section 2(f), the presumption of validity conferred by the registration also "includes a presumption that the registered mark has acquired distinctiveness[.]" 0000001069 00000 n Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff lacked evidence to support its alternative claim that even if SAND HILL ADVISORS were descriptive, such mark had gained secondary meaning. (Related document(s) 48 ) (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/23/2009) Modified on 12/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 15 U.S.C. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 47 ) (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/22/2009) Modified on 12/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/22/2009) Modified on 12/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Plaintiff also has made no showing that Plaintiff and Defendant attend the same networking events or that their "word-of-mouth" referrals involve the same demographic. VS ADAM B. (Entered: 01/14/2010), Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 1/12/2010 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (Date Filed: 1/12/2010). STRUCK'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, 7/21/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT ADAM B. To update this case yourself, sign into PACER (paid PACER subscription required). Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil no longer assigned to the case. Sciences Corp., 511 F.3d at 973. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2010) Modified on 1/27/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). J. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether, upon consideration of all terms comprising a composite mark, "the term is being used geographically." In re Sand Hill Exchange, et al. See MSJ Order at 13-14, Dkt. Clamp Mfg. 2.) (Related document(s) 48 ) (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/28/2009) Modified on 12/30/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System. Alliance for Open Soc. Of Grand View, 84 Video/newsstand, Inc. v. Thomas Sartini. Case No: C 08-5016 "Marks are often classified in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness; they may be (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful." Status Conference re: Arbitration scheduled for 08/29/2023 at 08:30 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department R, Pursuant to the request of plaintiff, Status Conference re: Arbitration scheduled for 10/04/2022 at 08:30 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department R Held - Continued was rescheduled to 08/29/2023 08:30 AM, Minute Order (Status Conference re: Arbitration), Updated -- Declaration Of Frank D. Rorie JR. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2008) (Entered: 12/16/2008), ANSWER to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses, Exhibits A - D by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2009) Modified on 1/6/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. 2548; Matsushita Elec. at 1219. 3-4) Modified on 12/29/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). 1052(f) (emphasis added). 3-5 d), filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC, Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Only admissible evidence may be considered in ruling on a motion for motion for summary judgment. (Id.) Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's likelihood of confusion claim was "frivolous." at 27:13-23 ("[W]e had been located at Sand Hill Road and actually were a very active part of the community around that area. The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the basis for the motion and identifying the portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on file that establish the absence of a triable issue of material fact. The central bank's instant payment system could bring enormous benefits to banks and their customers. Lahoti, 586 F.3d at 1201. Plaintiff argues that both parties: (1) operate websites to describe their services; (2) utilize promotional brochures; (3) rely on "word of mouth" referrals; (4) attend networking events; and (5) promote their marks on banners. Sand Hill, which caters primarily to high-net-worth individuals in Northern California, has $900 million of assets under management. There are three ways in which a plaintiff can establish that it has a protectable interest in a service mark or trademark: "(1) it has a federally registered mark in goods or services; (2) its mark is descriptive but has acquired a secondary meaning in the market; or (3) it has a suggestive mark, which is inherently distinctive and protectable." "); Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In view of the dearth of evidence of actual confusion, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. The Court concludes that the services are unrelated, and this factor weighs in favor of the Defendant. Even if section 2(f) were applicable, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the requisite five years of exclusive and continuous use. See Davidson Decl. Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. These undisputed facts demonstrate the undeniably geographic significance of the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. (Davidson Decl. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/5/2010. (Id. 28 U.S.C. at 132:12-133:8; Conway Depo. Motions due by 1/12/2010. If the moving party meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia. Id. The common use of an advertising medium (i.e., brochures and banners) is not probative of whether they are disseminated to the same audience. (Williams Decl. Defendant contends that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in bad faith, ostensibly because it pursued the action knowing that it had no protectable mark. 2753. 1:23-MC-00086 | 2023-02-15, California Courts Of Appeal | Other | In general, there are three ways in which a plaintiff can establish that it has a protectable interest in a service mark or trademark: "(1) it has a federally registered mark in goods or services; (2) its mark is descriptive but has acquired a secondary meaning in the market; or (3) it has a suggestive mark, which is inherently distinctive and protectable." at 212:7-10. Declaration of Albert R. Hill, Jr. in Support of 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed bySand Hill Advisors LLC. 57. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2010. Inc. v. US Agency Intern. Cal. Plaintiff then sought to change its name from "Sand Hill Advisors, Inc." to "Sand Hill Advisors, LLC." "Not surprisingly, under this standard, defendants are `rarely' awarded attorney fees in trademark infringement cases." 's Mot. The Court found that 2(f) was inapplicable because the mark was unregistered. 's Mot. 13. 0000005085 00000 n (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H PART 1, # 9 Exhibit H PART 2, # 10 Exhibit H PART 3, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit O, # 18 Exhibit P, # 19 Exhibit Q, # 20 Exhibit R, # 21 Exhibit S, # 22 Exhibit T, # 23 Exhibit U, # 24 Exhibit V)(Related document(s) 42 ) (Martin, James) (Filed on 12/11/2009) Modified on 12/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/19/09. Ex. The next factor concerns the proximity or relatedness of the good or services represented by the potentially infringing mark. The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant's motion for de novo determination of Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James' report and recommendation to deny Defendant's motion for attorneys' fees. ORDER VACATING HEARING re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. As a result of Plaintiff's inability to register the name "Sand Hill Advisors LLC" with the California Secretary of State, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in this Court on STRUCK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, 7/8/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities, 7/21/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF DENIS SHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT ADAM B. "While an intent to confuse consumers is not required for a finding of trademark infringement, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion." (Davidson Decl. Oct. 10, 2008) ("prevailing on the merits alone does not create a presumption that the suit was vexatious or in bad faith"). On January 26, 2010, the Court issued its Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant.1 See Order Granting Def. 's Mot. Sand Hill Global Advisors was founded in 1982 and is based in Palo Alto, California. After Defendant announced plans to open a shopping center in downtown Los Angeles under the name "The Collection," plaintiff filed suit for federal service mark infringement. See Aromatique, Inc. v. Gold Seal, Inc., 28 F.3d 863, 870 (8th Cir.1994) (plaintiff could not rely on presumption of secondary meaning where it alleged that defendant infringed in 1985, but the mark was not registered until 1988); 2 McCarthy 11:13 ("The presumption to which a 2(f) registration is entitled is not that the designation is inherently distinctive, but that it had acquired secondary meaning as of the date of registration.") STIPULATION AND ORDER re Pretrial Schedule. A.) (Miller, Katherine) (Filed on 2/19/2009) Modified on 2/20/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2009). (Hill Decl. 's Mot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria As support, Plaintiff relies on Rodeo Collection Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir.1987). 2753. All Rights Reserved. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. However, descriptive marks may acquire distinctiveness through use in commerce. (Entered: 02/19/2009), CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 2/18/2009 02:45 PM. (Opp'n at 19.) As for the issue of whether Plaintiff could establish the requisite five years of continuous and exclusive use, the Court finds that Defendant raised a colorable argument in support of such a claim. In general, the same analytical framework applies to infringement claims, irrespective of whether the marks or names are registered with the PTO. 56, Filing M2 Software, Inc. v. Madacy, 421 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005). Plaintiff's argument is unpersuasive. Founded Date Jan 1, 1982. In Sand Hill Advisors, LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors, LLC a trademark case involving companies with the same name the Northern District of California found that northern California is big enough for both parties.
Dirty Dog Card Game Rules,
Bongards American Cheese Government,
Articles S