(tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2009) (Entered: 01/29/2009), NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. However, the mark "Sand Hill Advisors" leaves little to the imagination. AMENDED ORDER re 91 Order. Struck (Defendant); As to: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); Shima Capitol LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Cross-Defendant) et al. Co-founder Jane Williams similarly confirmed the geographical significance of "Sand Hill." These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia. Jury Trial set for 2/22/2010 08:30 AM. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/12/2010) Modified on 1/13/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). JUDGMENT entered in favor of Defendant Sand Hill Advisors, LLC. 2753. The greater the similarity between the two marks at issue, the greater the likelihood of confusion. STRUCK, ET AL. Applied Info. 3-5.) Id. ), 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 November 4, 2008, alleging a single claim for service mark infringement under the Lanham Act. (Entered: 12/15/2008), Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes summary judgment if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In Brief: Boston Private to Buy Calif. Advisory Firm 57. E, F, H, K, L; Williams Depo. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2010) Modified on 1/26/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Conway Depo. 72(b)(1); Civ. 15 U.S.C. Case reassigned to Hon. 4.) Aside from being devoid of evidentiary support, Plaintiff's argument misses the point. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/16/10. CIV S-02-0704 FCD DAD, 2007 WL 988054 at *2 (E.D. DocketAnswer; Filed by: Adam B. Declaration of Albert R. Hill, Jr. in Support of 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed bySand Hill Advisors LLC. Sand Hill Though ultimately concluding that such evidence was insufficient to establish a issue of fact regarding secondary meaning, the Court did not find that Plaintiff's position was groundless or baseless. Factual findings are reviewed for clear error. 15 U.S.C. Broadly speaking, suggestive, arbitrary and fanciful marks are entitled to protection, whereas a descriptive mark is not unless it has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning. Company Type For Profit. Def. "); Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2009). Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 1/26/10. Having failed to show secondary meaning, Plaintiff cannot establish that it possesses a protectable mark, which is an essential element of its claim for service mark infringement. 57. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/1/2010. Unlike Plaintiff, Defendant does not provide any advice to any third party, and has no involvement in providing wealth management services. Plaintiff's argument is unpersuasive. Docket Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. (Opp'n at 14.) Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker, Cunney v. Bd. 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 2004) ("Is the mark the name of the place or region from which the goods actually come? In re Supply Guys, Inc., 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1488, 1495 (T.T.A.B.2008) involved an appeal from the denial of a trademark registration, while Modular Cinemas of America, Inc. v. Mini Cinemas Corp., 348 F.Supp. Saundra Brown Armstrong for all further proceedings. 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, for Summ. (Id.). Messrs. Sandell and Hill selected the name "Sand Hill" by combining the first four letters of Mr. Sandell's last name with Mr. Hill's last name. Defendant is therefore entitled to summary judgment on this basis. WebIAPD provides information on Investment Adviser firms regulated by the SEC and/or state securities regulators. Def. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant. In certain cases, "[e]vidence of use and advertising over a substantial period of time is enough to establish secondary meaning." The Court has concluded above that "Sand Hill Advisors" is primarily geographically descriptive, which supports the conclusion that the mark is weak. (Entered: 12/11/2009), Memorandum in Opposition re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. But there's still some wrinkles that need to be ironed out so it can work with its cousin from The Clearing House. "However, such a broad inference is not sufficient to demonstrate that a genuine issue exists concerning likelihood of confusion as to the source of the products involved in the present suit." (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2008) (Entered: 11/06/2008), COMPLAINT against Sand Hill Advisors LLC (Filing fee $350, receipt number 34611025084). The record confirms that within five years of Plaintiff alleged date of first use, Defendant used the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark on its letterhead, and transacted business and publicized itself in newspapers and other media under that name. 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. J. 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. Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. (Entered: 01/28/2009), ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 11 Motion for, CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASES: Case Management Conference set for 2/12/2009 02:45 PM. 64. L.) Although it is not engaged in the purchase or sale of real estate on behalf of its clients, Plaintiff does provide advice and counseling on investments in real property and Real Estate Investment Trusts, real estate financing alternatives, management alternatives, asset allocation and trends in the real estate market. 2:23-MC-00075 | 2023-02-15, U.S. District Courts | Other | Yellow Cab Co. of Sacramento v. Yellow Cab of Elk Grove, Inc., 419 F.3d 925, 930 (9th Cir.2005). (Martin, James) (Filed on 12/11/2009) Modified on 12/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Consequently, only evidence showing use of the mark in advertising prior to Defendant's use of the mark is probative of secondary meaning. "Sand Hill" refers to a geographical locale where Plaintiff operates its business. 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. M2 Software, Inc. v. Madacy, 421 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005). 84. 47 0 obj<>stream No one has written a summary of this case yet. Entrepreneur Media, 279 F.3d at 1148. (Id. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment)(Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009), Ex Parte Application to Move the Hearing Date for Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 10 22 0000013022 00000 n 2753. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Ex. Sciences Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 969-970 (9th Cir.2007). See MSJ Order at 11-12, Dkt. WebSAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, vs. 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. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. See Order of Reference, Dkt. "In determining whether a mark has obtained secondary meaning, courts consider: (1) whether actual purchasers of the product bearing the mark associate the mark with the producer; (2) the degree and manner of advertising under the mark; (3) the length and manner of use of the mark; and (4) whether use of the mark has been exclusive." United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division. Defendant contends that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in bad faith, ostensibly because it pursued the action knowing that it had no protectable mark. (Entered: 02/24/2009), ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for ALL Discovery purposes. Yida Gao et al v. Struck et al 1:2023mc00086 | US District Court for (Hill Depo. 0000002907 00000 n (Martin, James) (Filed on 1/22/2010) Modified on 1/25/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). In addition, Defendant ignores the evidence proffered by Plaintiff, and cited by the Magistrate, that Plaintiff desired to protect the goodwill that it believed it had established by operating under the Sand Hill Advisors name. (Entered: 02/26/2009), ADR Clerks Notice Appointing James Gilliland as Mediator. (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/22/2009) Modified on 12/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 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." 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 (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2010) Modified on 2/18/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). See Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 348-49. %PDF-1.3 's Mot. However, neither of cases cited by Plaintiff supports that proposition. 's Mot. Although Plaintiff and Defendant share the same mark, they offer completely distinct services to distinct consumers in separate markets. San Francisco-based First Republic was undone by low-rate mortgages it made to its wealthy customers as well as by the fallout from last month's banking crisis. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC at 8-9. 62-3. We are experts in guiding wealthy families and individuals through complex financial transitions. The central bank's instant payment system could bring enormous benefits to banks and their customers. Id. 0000000860 00000 n (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2010). The Court found that 2(f) was inapplicable because the mark was unregistered. While both parties operate websites, Plaintiff has admitted that no one viewing Defendant's website would confuse it with Plaintiff's site. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options, filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC (Miller, Katherine) (Filed on 1/28/2009) Modified on 1/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). trailer Filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. Hill v. Snyder | American Civil Liberties Union Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Ex. Cir.2009). Docketof Court Order Continuing CMC; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. However, the issue was not as simple as Defendant now purports it to be. *1112 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. Sand Hill Advisors, LLC - CourtListener.com 1117(a). 41, Filing at 8-9. 2023-02-21, Los Angeles County Superior Courts | Contract | Fed.R.Civ.P 72(b)(1); see Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1022 (9th Cir. Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Non-Government Works Copyright 2001-2023 Think Computer Corporation. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2009) (Entered: 02/19/2009), Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 2/18/2009 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. 5.) 3.) Like Boston Private Financial, which manages about $4 billion of assets, Sand Hill has placed an emphasis on serving owners and operators of private businesses, a largely underserved market, Mr. Pressey said. 57. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia. Co., Inc., 870 F.2d 512, 517 (9th Cir. Why is this public record being published online? SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC v. SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC 30, 2007) (citations omitted). Thus, if the claim raises "debatable issues of law and fact," then it cannot be said that the case is an "exceptional" one warranting an award of attorney fees. Such services include investment planning, retirement and estate planning and philanthropic strategies.
Ole Miss Softball Roster,
Why Is My Shein Order Stuck In Transit,
Articles S