sand hill advisors lawsuit

Though acknowledging that Defendant had used the SAND HILL ADVISORS mark sometime after its formation in 1999, Plaintiff argued that such use was insufficient to show "use in commerce" for trademark purposes. 0000005059 00000 n (Entered: 12/22/2009), Reply Memorandum re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. (Davidson Decl. Defendant filed a reply memorandum, and the matter is now fully briefed. All that Mr. Conway could state was that he raised the issue with them; beyond that vague recollection, however, Mr. Conway unequivocally stated that he could not remember what he discussed with them specifically. At Sand Hill, we have long-standing experience with RSUs, deferred compensation, and specialized tax at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. (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. 0000004838 00000 n Def. See Stephen W. Boney, 127 F.3d at 827 (holding that case was not exceptional notwithstanding grant of summary judgment); CG Roxanne LLC v. Fiji Water Co. LLC, No. C, Conway Depo. The Fiduciary Network-affiliated firm revealed on Wednesday that it had accessed the funds through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Of Trs. Factual disputes are genuine if they "properly can be resolved in favor of either party." In October 1989, Conway, Luongo, Williams, Inc., changed its name to Conway, Williams & Foster, Inc. (Id. 2007). Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. In that case, plaintiff Rodeo Collection, Inc., held several registered services marks for the mark "Rodeo Collection," which it used in connection with providing shopping center services. 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. 9.) at 207:11-19.) 0000000913 00000 n (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2010). (Hill Decl. <<22A12329BFF53A46B00346188163DD72>]>> Entrepreneur Media, 279 F.3d at 1144. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/1/2010. See Lahoti, 586 F.3d at 1196. 2548; Matsushita Elec. trailer %PDF-1.4 Plaintiff is a self-styled "wealth management" firm currently located in Menlo Park, California. 3Wrv]*\nwNN!4N%tN)NNNN9)%-cDE)7(/-3d=:tK~iE)f}!C6C@0d.O rZ aEnQ;! The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. Ex. for Summ. As above, the mere fact that the Court disagreed with Plaintiff's interpretation of 2(f) does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that Plaintiff's arguments were "baseless." B, Williams Depo. Years later, certain members of Plaintiff's management sought to reacquire their equity stake from Boston Private, which prompted Plaintiff to reorganize as a Delaware limited liability company. The amount of protection accorded to a particular mark is a function of its distinctiveness. DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. This argument is based on nothing but sheer speculation, which is not evidence. Having reviewed the motion papers submitted and considered *1110 the arguments of counsel in connection with this matter, the Court GRANTS the motion for the reasons set forth below. 0000000596 00000 n VIA TELEPHONE (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2009) (Entered: 02/09/2009), JOINT REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting, filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC, Sand Hill Advisors LLC. See Report and Recommendation Re: Def. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2010) Modified on 1/26/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company: Defendant - Appellee,: SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a California limited liability company: Case Number: "s1&8,2R8{(.ib,8"oa#r8X|/(~?|2L 0.eGPhk~oG?f(EIz>k @)e\+p\R8rsC/b9,,yNJilRhmZ5eirfiBb%_{@GFq6$t^S9:W-'Y). Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 2/16/10. (Davidson Reply Decl. We lived in that area. Id. 's Mot. at 8-9. (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/22/2009) Modified on 12/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Why is this public record being published online? As noted, a descriptive mark cannot be registered with the PTO absent a showing of secondary meaning. See Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. The Rodeo Collection court held that under both tests, the mark "Rodeo Collection," and the component term "Collection" were "more than merely descriptive as used to identify a shopping center." 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. Applied Info. 58, Filing Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/15/10. Modified on 11/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download: Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. MC/ 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. *1109 Rachel R. Davidson of K & L Gates, LLP for Defendant, Sand Hill Advisors. Plaintiff's desire to protect such interests is a legitimate one. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION to Of Frank D. Rorie JR. 72-3. (Entered: 01/22/2010), STIPULATION and Proposed Order re Pretrial Schedule, by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 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. These marketing and promotion efforts have included sending out newsletters, attending conferences, providing commentary on radio and television programs, preparing white papers (i.e., reports), underwriting community and charity events, participating in non-profit boards, maintaining an active website and attending professional events. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2009) Modified on 2/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 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. Def. (Martin, James) (Filed on 12/11/2009) Modified on 12/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Davidson Decl. CV-08-5016-SBA ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC'S STIPULATION TO AMEND ANSWER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED He further stated that the location of Plaintiff's business "was very much part and parcel" to its decision to adopt "Sand Hill Advisors" as its name. 0000005571 00000 n Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk. The central bank's instant payment system could bring enormous benefits to banks and their customers. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC v. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC. 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. However, the issue was not as simple as Defendant now purports it to be. Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. Id. (Entered: 01/28/2009), ADR Certification (ADR L.R. Notwithstanding that finding, the Court disagrees with Defendant that Plaintiff's arguments were "frivolous." Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC, Filing Thane Int'l, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 305 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir.2002). at 970. 0000005085 00000 n Aug. 13, 2007). Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/5/2010. (Id.) 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 (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. A claim is unreasonable or groundless for purposes of a permissible award of fees only if it is frivolous and fails to raise colorable or debatable issues. 1997). 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." at 24:11-14.) 33 0 obj <> endobj STRUCK CAPITAL SPECIAL SITUATIONS MANAGEMENT LLC, DIVERGENCE DIGITAL CURRENCY MANAGEMENT LLC, 8/3/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION), 2/3/2023: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information, 10/12/2022: Notice - OF COURT ORDER CONTINUING CMC, 10/4/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ARBITRATION), 2/3/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ARBITRATION), 7/8/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF FRANK D. RORIE JR. See Davidson Decl. 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. Lahoti, 586 F.3d at 1201. No one has written a summary of this case yet. 2.) See Grupo Gigante SA De CV v. Dallo & Co., Inc., 391 F.3d 1088, 1102 (9th Cir.2004) ("Descriptive or suggestive marks are relatively weak."). All but one of the Sleekcraft factors strongly favor Defendant, and none favor Plaintiff. (Id. 0000000016 00000 n "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."). REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2010. (Entered: 12/23/2009), RESPONSE to re 45 Objection to Evidence filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 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."). In addition, the Court may consider further evidence or remand the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. (Id. Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. Shortly thereafter on November 17, 2008, Plaintiff sought to register "Sand Hill Advisors" as a service mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). 2505. An applicant nevertheless may seek to register a descriptive mark pursuant to section 2(f), which creates a presumption of distinctiveness (or "acquired distinctiveness"), where the applicant can establish at least five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use. 7@t020B bNq E Astra Pharm. The record shows that over the course of the last ten years since Defendant began using the "Sand Hill Advisors" name, it has received only five or six telephone calls and one package intended for Plaintiff. Ex. Case Management Conference set for 2/10/2009 04:00 PM. On November 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in this Court, alleging a single claim for service mark infringement under the Lanham Act. Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker, Cunney v. Bd. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. Sand Hill, which caters primarily to high-net-worth individuals in Northern California, has $900 million of assets under management. 57. (Entered: 12/22/2009), Proposed Order re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. (McCaffrey Depo. Def. Plaintiff attempted to register its new name with the California Secretary of State, but was informed that Defendant had previously registered the name with the State in 1999. This factor is not centered on a prospective customer or client's purchase decision, but rather, whether he or she is sufficiently sophisticated to discern the difference between the parties, notwithstanding their use of an identical or confusingly similar mark. In opposing Defendant's summary judgment motion, Plaintiff argued that the presumption applied 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. Sand Hill Global Advisors was founded in 1982 and is based in Palo Alto, California. Id. 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. The Court found that 2(f) was inapplicable because the mark was unregistered. Japan Telecom, 287 F.3d at 873, 875 (affirming summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to show secondary meaning). ("MSJ Order"), Dkt. The court has the discretion under Lanham Act to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in "exceptional cases." Factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Plaintiff's ancillary contention that "Sand Hill Advisors" satisfies the "need test" fares no better. 's Mot. 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). Indeed, Mr. Conway admitted that Defendant is not a competitor of Plaintiff. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added). On February 9, 2010, Defendant filed a motion for attorneys' fees, which was referred to Magistrate Judge James ("the Magistrate"). [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. Def. 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 Case No: C 08-5016 DocketStatus Conference re: Arbitration scheduled for 08/29/2023 at 08:30 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department R, DocketPursuant 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, DocketMinute Order (Status Conference re: Arbitration), DocketUpdated -- Declaration Of Frank D. Rorie JR. However, the mark "Sand Hill Advisors" leaves little to the imagination. (Williams Decl. However, the likelihood of confusion is obviated where, as here, the services are unrelated and the parties operate in distinct markets with no overlap in customers. Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot meet either element of the test for service mark infringement, as a matter of law. ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. startxref Declaration of Albert R. Hill, Jr. in Support of 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed bySand Hill Advisors LLC. (Mot. As such, to survive summary judgment, a plaintiff is "required to come forward with enough evidence of secondary meaning to establish a genuine dispute of fact." trailer Accordingly, a genuine issue for trial exists if the non-movant presents evidence from which a reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that party, could resolve the material issue in his or her favor. AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979). 's Mot. ), In 2000, Plaintiff changed its state of incorporation from California to Delaware, for reasons which were related to the acquisition of Plaintiff by Boston Private Financial Holdings ("Boston Private"). Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/22/2010. (Opp'n at 17.) Id. STIPULATION AND ORDER re Pretrial Schedule. Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. at 24:1-12 ("at the time we were located on Sand Hill Road. The record confirms that Plaintiff proffered evidence regarding it various marketing and promotional efforts using the SAND HILL ADVISORS name. As such, Defendant is hard pressed to criticize Plaintiff for making an erroneous argument when Plaintiff itself failed to recognize that error in its papers. (Id. Mark H. Epstein in Department R Santa Monica Courthouse, DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by: Clerk. Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil no longer assigned to the case. (Davidson's Reply Decl. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2009) Modified on 11/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 's Mot. Phone Number (650) 8549150. 0000001032 00000 n Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/1/2010. Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir.2009). at 24:9-14.) 3-5.) (wdblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2008) Modified on 12/16/2008 (cjl, COURT STAFF). "A strong possibility that either party may expand his business to compete with the other will weigh in favor of finding that the present use is infringing." United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division. In its motion, Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that "Sand Hill Advisors" is a protectable mark or that Defendant's use of the mark is likely to confuse the public. Assuming without deciding that Plaintiff's date of first use was March 25, 1995, Defendant has presented uncontroverted evidence demonstrating that it used the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark within five years of that date. 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. Co., 704 F.2d 1575, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1983) (common use of "DRC" mark not likely to cause confusion where products were "quite distinct"). VS SEAN SABERI, ET AL. (Entered: 12/28/2009), *** FILED IN ERROR. (Entered: 12/11/2009), ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 40 Ex Parte Application (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2009), Ex Parte MOTION to Modify Briefing Schedule re Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Entrepreneur Media, 279 F.3d at 1148. Ex. Plaintiff concedes as much, but argues such sophistication is irrelevant on the ground that its clients would not retain Plaintiff if they believed that it was focused on real estate management. STRUCK'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, 7/27/2021: Reply - REPLY REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ADAM B. STRUCKS MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, Hearing08/29/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department R at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Status Conference, DocketUpdated -- Denis Shmidt (Attorney): Organization Name changed from Orsus Gate LLP to HARDER STONEROCK LLP, DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); Shima Capitol Management LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Cross-Defendant); Shima Capitol GP LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Cross-Defendant); New Firm Name: HARDER STONEROCK LLP, DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by: Amnon Siegel (Attorney), DocketAddress for Amnon Siegel (Attorney) updated. WebSAND HILL GLOBAL ADVISORS, LLC ( CRD # 111295/SEC#:801-58002 ) SAND HILL ADVISORS, INC., SAND HILL GLOBAL ADVISORS, LLC, SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC., SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC. As support, Plaintiff relies on Rodeo Collection Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir.1987). 0000002831 00000 n Struck (Defendant); As to: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); Shima Capitol LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Cross-Defendant) et al. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992). On appeal, the court addressed, among other things, the strength of the mark "Rodeo Collection." WebCase No. DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Adam B. (Opp'n at 14.) To request information suppression, updates, or additions, contact us about this docket. Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE to be held between 01/13/10 ant 01/22/10; Case Referred to Mediation. at 80:15, 81:21-22. The Court of Appeal had rejected Sand Hill's claims against Wells Fargo related to a 2011 lawsuit, which alleged a foreclosure auction of the center was not properly held. Defendant has since corrected this error by submitting a properly verified version of Mr. Hill's declaration. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2010) Modified on 3/2/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Defendant now moves this Court for a de novo determination of the Magistrate's recommendation, and requests that the Court grant its motion for attorneys' fees. See, e.g., Williams Decl. Defendant is a California limited liability company located in Los Altos, California, formed by business partners Bert Sandell and Albert Hill, Jr. Messrs. Sandell and Hill filed their Limited Liability Company Articles of Organization with the California Secretary of State on April 27, 1999. None of the remaining evidence to which Plaintiff has interposed objections is necessary to adjudicate the instant motion. 1986). 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. Thus, the Court concludes that "Sand Hill Advisors" is primarily geographically descriptive. Id. 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. Public Records Policy. 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." IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, 7/8/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ADAM B. 0000001856 00000 n (Id.). Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/5/09. 2004) ("Is the mark the name of the place or region from which the goods actually come? 636(b)(1). A subscription to PACER is required. Equally unpersuasive is Defendant's contention that Plaintiff had no basis upon which to rely on section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 4 and Ex. 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). 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. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2010) Modified on 6/2/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Alternatively, the Court concluded that even if 2(f) were germane, Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate the requisite five years of exclusive and continuous use. 5.) 0000002907 00000 n C.). 2753. The plaintiffs in this case, the New Jersey Sand Hill Band of Lenape and Cherokee Indians and its representative Ronald S. Holloway (collectively, "plaintiffs"), seek redress for the alleged conversion and misappropriation of Despite Defendant's intimation to the contrary, the Court did not conclude that a mark is weakened by common use of terms comprising the mark only where the marks are identical. Even if section 2(f) were applicable, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the requisite five years of exclusive and continuous use. GoTo. at 51:6-52:14; Williams Decl. Cir.2009). Sign up or sign in to contribute one. (quoting Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc., 531 F.2d 366, 379 (7th Cir. Plaintiff nonetheless insists that "Sand Hill," when combined with "Advisors," is suggestive, as opposed to descriptive. 's Mot. Here, there is no dispute that "Sand Hill" refers to a geographical locale *1114 on or near Sand Hill Road in the Silicon Valley and that Plaintiff, in fact, chose "Sand Hill" because of its geographical significance. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. (Entered: 02/19/2009), CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 9/30/2009. The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." See McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 584 F.3d 1129, 1138 (9th Cir.2009) ("Summary judgment requires facts, not simply unsupported denials or rank speculation"). 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). 1976)). The party seeking a fee award bears the burden of proving exceptional circumstances by "compelling proof." SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, (Id.). at 13-18. Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 769, 112 S.Ct. Of Vill. 39, Filing 1052(f) (emphasis added). 0 However, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a mark need not precisely describe the services provided in order to be descriptive. (Opp'n at 16-17.) 57. Sciences Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 969-970 (9th Cir.2007). Viewing the record in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that no reasonable jury could find that the parties' common use of the "Sand Hill Mark" is sufficient to create a likelihood of confusion. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Stipulation to Amend Answer and Affirmative Defenses)(Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 5/21/2009) Modified on 5/22/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Adam B. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC, SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a California limited liability company. Filing 1 MOTION for a Protective Order - filed by Yida Gao, Sand Hill Advisors PR LLC, Shima Capital Management LLC. 4.) Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1055. Plaintiff admittedly has no direct evidence of Defendant's intent to deceive, but instead claims that such intent can be inferred on the ground that Mr. Hill denied knowing about Plaintiff's existence at the time he registered Defendant as a limited liability company in 1999. Id. Lahoti, 586 F.3d at 1197. It is undisputed that Defendant offers no advice concerning investing in real estate to any third parties. (Entered: 01/14/2010), Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 1/12/2010 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (Date Filed: 1/12/2010). Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 0000012780 00000 n (Entered: 01/12/2010), EXHIBIT C re 48 Declaration of Rachel R. Davidson in Support, CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 50 filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 62-5; see also R&R at 6-7, Dkt. Docket Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. 's Opp'n to Def. 0000000940 00000 n ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 35 Ex Parte Motion to Move the Hearing Date for Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Setting Hearing on Motion For Summary Judgment to 1/12/2010 at 01:00 PM. United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division. Mark H. Epstein in Department R Santa Monica Courthouse, Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by: Clerk.

Dli Requirements For Vegetables, Sims 4 Cc Cottagecore Clothes, Naval Academy Summer Sports Camps 2022, Articles S