at 8-9. [2] Registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of its validity, as well as its owner's entitlement to use the mark exclusively as specified in the registration. (Entered: 12/22/2009), Proposed Order re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Sand Hill 10; Davidson Decl. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel, filed by Sand Hill Advisors, LLC. Civ. K.) Where the market is inundated by products using the particular trademarked word, there is a corresponding likelihood that consumers "will not likely be confused by any two in the crowd." Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! (Opp'n at 19.) 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 On January 26, 2010, the Court issued its Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant.1 See Order Granting Def. 28 U.S.C. (Id. Id. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 51 . Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker, Cunney v. Bd. The Ninth Circuit construes the "exceptional cases" requirement narrowly. "Secondary meaning can be established in many ways, including (but not limited to) direct consumer testimony; survey evidence; exclusivity, manner, and length of use of a mark; amount and manner of advertising; amount of sales and number of customers; established place in the market; and proof of intentional copying by the defendant." Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. Company Type For Profit. See Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d 1062, 1076 (9th Cir.2006). AMENDED ORDER re 91 Order, Terminate Motions,,,,,,. The Court is persuaded by the record presented that any overlap in the parties' marketing channels is nil or minimal, which weighs in favor of Defendant. xref
2008). (Id. WebMike and his team have represented some of the worlds most recognized brands and companies in high-stakes litigation in numerous federal courts across the country including Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Utah, and Florida. Though the Court ultimately rejected each of Plaintiff's contentions, that alone does not support the conclusion that its position that the mark at issue was suggestive was frivolous. (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/22/2009) Modified on 12/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 2.) Having reviewed the motion papers submitted and reviewed the file in this matter, the Court ADOPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate and DENIES Defendant's motion for attorneys' fees. A.) Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. (McCaffrey Depo. 's Mot. The marks here are identical, which, at first blush, appears to favor Plaintiff. STIPULATION AND ORDER: To Allow Defendant to Amend Answer, Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 5/27/09. Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil no longer assigned to the case. J. Co., Inc., 870 F.2d 512, 517 (9th Cir. As such, other advisory companies are more likely to refer to "Sand Hill" and "Advisors" in describing or advertising their services. v. 7@t020B bNq E
(lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2010) Modified on 1/26/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). But there's still some wrinkles that need to be ironed out so it can work with its cousin from The Clearing House. In addition, Plaintiff ignores that "[t] he question is whether the phrase can be construed to mean that the product is made in a certain locale." 7-1(b). (Entered: 01/05/2009), ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Such services include investment planning, retirement and estate planning and philanthropic strategies. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Sand Hill Advisors, LLC - CourtListener.com (quoting Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc., 531 F.2d 366, 379 (7th Cir. J. at 16, Dkt. Com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1205 n. 3 (9th Cir.2000). 's Mot. Defendant next argues that Plaintiff lacked any objective basis upon which to claim that SAND HILL ADVISORS is a suggestive mark entitled to protection under the Lanham Act. DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Adam B. WebSand Hill: a California Financial Planning and Wealth Management Firm, 245 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, 94301, United States (650) 854-9150 amy@select-advisors.com (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2009) Modified on 2/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 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. 57. 15 U.S.C. A district court judge may refer a matter to a magistrate judge to conduct a hearing, including an evidentiary hearing, and to thereafter issue findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of the matter. Sciences Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 969-970 (9th Cir.2007). Of Trs. 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. at 131:9-10; Davidson Decl. 0000000016 00000 n
Ex. 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. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2008) (Entered: 11/06/2008), Summons Issued as to Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 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. 1995). 0000002351 00000 n
Def. 0000002341 00000 n
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. In February of 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Michigan filed a lawsuit on behalf of nine Michigan citizens who were sentenced to life 0000002583 00000 n
Plaintiff, however, was unable to register the new name with the California Secretary of State because *1111 Defendant had previously registered the name with the State in 1999. Here, Plaintiff asserts that the presumption applies here because it allegedly has been using the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark exclusively and continuously since March 29, 1995, and that Defendant did not begin using the mark until 2005, which more than five years after Plaintiff's date of first use. "The two tests are related because `[t]he more imagination that is required to associate a mark with a product [or service,] the less likely the words used will be needed by competitors to describe their products [or services].'" at 22.) Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC 's Opp'n to Def. 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. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the matter under submission. 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. The recommendation of the Magistrate is ADOPTED and Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees is DENIED. WebCompany profile page for Sand Hill Advisors Inc including stock price, company news, press releases, executives, board members, and contact information at 769, 112 S.Ct. 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
Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. 2753. (Entered: 05/28/2009), STIPULATION to Amend Defendant Sand Hill Advisors LLC's Answer and Affirmative Defenses, filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC., Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Indus. All Rights Reserved. Since it began using the "Sand Hill Advisors LLC" mark in 1999, Defendant has received only five or six telephone calls and received a package intended for Plaintiff. Sand Hill Global Advisors takes out PPP (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2009) Modified on 11/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Def. 57. <<22A12329BFF53A46B00346188163DD72>]>>
. ), Defendant is a California limited liability company formed by business partners Bert Sandell and Albert Hill, Jr., located in Los Altos, California. (Mot. WebREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2010. (Conway Depo. Since around 1995, Plaintiff has provided a variety of financial and advisory services to its "high net-worth" clients to assist them in the investment and management of their assets. On September 3, 2009, the PTO rejected Plaintiff's application on the basis that "Sand Hill" is "primarily geographically descriptive" under 15 U.S.C. Factual disputes are genuine if they "properly can be resolved in favor of either party." 0000004838 00000 n
Id. "); see also McCaffrey Depo. (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. Finally, one place to get all the court documents we need. "Not surprisingly, under this standard, defendants are `rarely' awarded attorney fees in trademark infringement cases." Sand Hill Advisors, LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors, LLC :: California Complaint; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. Yida Gao et al v. Struck et al 1:2023mc00086 | US District Court for (Entered: 02/26/2009), ADR Clerks Notice Appointing James Gilliland as Mediator. 62-3. at 50:10-52:14.) 636(b)(1); see Fed.R.Civ.P 72(b). Ex. The Court concludes that the services are unrelated, and this factor weighs in favor of the Defendant. 44; Davidson Decl. The party seeking a fee award bears the burden of proving exceptional circumstances by "compelling proof." Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Of Vill. Inc., 287 F.3d 866, 871 (9th Cir.2002) (use of "Japan" in "Japan Telecom, Inc." did not "automatically make the trade name geographically descriptive"); Forschner Group, 30 F.3d at 355 ("That a phrase or term evokes geographic associations does not, standing alone, support a finding of geographic descriptiveness."). (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2009) (Entered: 03/05/2009), STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER. The common use of an advertising medium (i.e., brochures and banners) is not probative of whether they are disseminated to the same audience. 61, 64, 84, 85 at 23:3-15; Williams Decl. C, Conway Depo. (Entered: 05/21/2009), CERTIFICATION OF MEDIATION Session 5/19/2009, case not settled, no follow up contemplated, mediation complete. On January 12, 2010, the parties appeared through counsel for oral argument on the motion. Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James, on 3/1/2010. at 8-9. (Entered: 01/30/2009), JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and Proposed Order, filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC., Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, on February 26, 2009. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2009) Modified on 1/6/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant. (Opp'n at 17.) This is particularly true where the good or service is expensive. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC, Filing See MSJ Order at 13-14, Dkt. ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. Get A.M.business scoops. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 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. 0000000596 00000 n
Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 352; Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Netscape Commc'ns, 354 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir.2004) ("actual confusion among significant numbers of consumers provides strong support for the likelihood of confusion[.]"). 's Mot. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2008) (Entered: 11/06/2008). (Conway Depo. 2005). 61, 64, 84, 85 Defendant. 0000013022 00000 n
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. Headquarters Regions San Francisco Bay Area, Silicon Valley, West Coast. 57. 1. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1055. The court has the discretion under Lanham Act to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in "exceptional cases." Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. at 1218. 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." Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/1/2010. 92, Filing at 80:15, 81:21-22. STRUCK, ET AL. 2009). WebCase No. (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. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2010) Modified on 3/2/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png.