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. 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. 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. (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, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R)(Related document(s) 36 ) (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009), MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 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. 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. 2548; Matsushita Elec. The parties, through counsel, appeared for argument on the motion on January 12, 2010. The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 769, 112 S.Ct. And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! 15 U.S.C. Id. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, %PDF-1.3 Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System. This is indicative of a descriptive mark. Id. (Date Filed: 2/18/2009). United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division. Id. As a result, Plaintiff changed its state of incorporation from California to Delaware. Mar. (Entered: 12/02/2009). Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/5/2010. Japan Telecom, 287 F.3d at 871; see also Comm. Sand Hill, which caters primarily to high-net-worth individuals in Northern California, has $900 million of assets under management. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2009) Modified on 1/6/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 64. Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. Ex. "s1&8,2R8{(.ib,8"oa#r8X|/(~?|2L 0.eGPhk~oG?f(EIz>k @)e\+p\R8rsC/b9,,yNJilRhmZ5eirfiBb%_{@GFq6$t^S9:W-'Y). Plaintiff's assertion that the parties overlap in the area of real estate services paints with too broad a brush. 57. 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. 41, Filing On November 19, 2009, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. Home | Sand Hill Global Advisors (Conway Depo. at 3. "An expert survey of purchasers can provide the most persuasive evidence of secondary meaning." Def. at 132:12-133:8; Conway Depo. 84. Id. 2009). WebSAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, vs. Ex. 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."). At his deposition, Mr. Hill testified that he made an effort to determine whether the domain name www.sandhill advisors.com was available, but denied using an internet search engine such as Google to ascertain whether another company already was using the name "Sand Hill Advisors." Astra Pharm. Sand Hill Global Advisors Reviews DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. Modified on 11/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). The fact that the Court concluded that the Sleekcraft factors supported Defendant's position does not render Plaintiff's claim groundless or unreasonable. ), According to its founders, they changed the firm name to "Sand Hill Advisors" because of recent developments in its business and accompanying desire to no longer use individual's names to identify the firm. (Williams Decl. Yida Gao et al v. Struck et al 1:2023mc00086 | US District Court for See Lahoti, 586 F.3d at 1196. xb``f``b sT,PAABmgX$ "Advisors" aptly describes the nature of Plaintiff's business; to wit, it advises clients on maintaining and building their wealth. (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). The Court has concluded above that "Sand Hill Advisors" is primarily geographically descriptive, which supports the conclusion that the mark is weak. See Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d 1062, 1076 (9th Cir.2006). In any event, little imagination would be required for a consumer to connect "Sand Hill Advisors" with other companies that are located in or near the Sand Hill area whose service is providing advice. At Sand Hill, we have long-standing experience with RSUs, deferred compensation, and specialized tax These undisputed facts demonstrate the undeniably geographic significance of the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2010. Jury Trial set for 2/22/2010 08:30 AM. A.) Cir.2009). Having so decided, the Court turns to the issue of whether the mark has acquired secondary meaning. Seattle Trademark Lawyer Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION), Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information, Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ARBITRATION), Declaration - DECLARATION OF FRANK D. RORIE JR. Answer; Filed by: Adam B. 91, Filing In June 1982, CLW Financial Services, Inc., became known as Conway, Luongo, Williams, Inc. (Id. (McCaffrey Depo. In Support Of Motion To Compel Arbitration: Name Extension changed from OF FRANK D. RORIE JR. Cal. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2008) (Entered: 11/06/2008), Summons Issued as to Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 88, Filing Docket Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. 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." (Entered: 01/22/2010), STIPULATION and Proposed Order re Pretrial Schedule, by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. (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. See Davidson Decl. 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. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. STRUCK'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT ADAM B. Sand Hill Global Advisors takes out PPP 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. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/5/09. Sign up or sign in to contribute one. 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 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. endstream endobj 21 0 obj<>stream (Opp'n at 22-23.) HWv6}WGj}I-Y]Ih RdJRx>#wHY 8}9|n{oXxlW0A(x{3|ZUzjlWgQ?mf7Es2P2AB& nwdse%7YPI*eoFH1GI!| Green Valley Corporation, a company under developer Barry Swenson Builder, sold the lot to Sand Hill's limited liability partnership, Four Corners EPA Property Owner LLC. 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. Where, as here, the mark is not registered, a plaintiff must establish that its mark either is inherently distinctive, or has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning. On January 12, 2010, the parties appeared through counsel for oral argument on the motion. 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. (Davidson Decl. Thus, in a federal infringement action, the holder of the registered mark may rely on section 2(f) to show acquired distinctiveness (i.e., secondary meaning) as of the date of registration. SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC v. SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC 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." 9.) 0000002351 00000 n 1502(e)(2). SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Dkt. at 24:9-11. C at *13. Notice of Settlement Conference and Settlement Conference Order for 1/13/2010 02:00 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/16/10. E, F, H, K, L; Williams Depo. At the other end of the spectrum are generic marks, which are not protected. The Ninth Circuit construes the "exceptional cases" requirement narrowly. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 (1992). 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"). 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. at 12-13. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. at 89:9-12.) 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. Related services are generally more likely than unrelated services to confuse the public as to the provider of the services. All Rights Reserved. 's Mot. 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. 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 ***Civil Case Terminated. 0000002583 00000 n Alliance for Open Soc. 0 These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia. See Order of Reference, Dkt. Case reassigned to Hon. In addition, the Court may consider further evidence or remand the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 26, US District Court for the Northern District of California, 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act). SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Dkt. Struck (Defendant); As to: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); Shima Capitol LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Cross-Defendant) et al. Sand Hill Filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 1989). The matter has been fully briefed, and is now ripe for determination. The most favorable inference that may be drawn from the record regarding the similarities in the parties' services is that both, in a broad sense, have some connection to "real estate." However, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a mark need not precisely describe the services provided in order to be descriptive. Unlike Plaintiff, Defendant does not provide any advice to any third party, and has no involvement in providing wealth management services. 1979). (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2008) (Entered: 11/06/2008), ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 2/3/2009. (Hill Decl. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2010) Modified on 2/18/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). v. Joseph Rubin et al. AMENDED ORDER re 91 Order. This argument is based on nothing but sheer speculation, which is not evidence. Sand Hill Global Advisors 13.) 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. 's Mot. 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 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. 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. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2009) (Entered: 03/05/2009), STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER. Ex. Plaintiff, Sand Hill Advisors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, filed the instant service mark infringement action under the Lanham Act seeking to prevent Defendant, Sand Hill Advisors LLC, a California limited liability company, from continuing to use the mark "Sand Hill Advisors." WebCompany profile page for Sand Hill Advisors Inc including stock price, company news, press releases, executives, board members, and contact information at 10-11. We lived in that area. No one has written a summary of this case yet. 85. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC. "); Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff is a wealth management firm that provides advice to its wealthy clients to assist them in the management of their assets; to that end, provides advice on investment planning, retirement and estate planning and philanthropic strategies. Plaintiff's ancillary contention that "Sand Hill Advisors" satisfies the "need test" fares no better. Id. LANSING, Mich. (WILX) - About half of Michigans counties, including Ingham, Eaton and Hillsdale, have been named in a class-action lawsuit over profits from the sale See Aromatique, 28 F.3d at 870. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768, 112 S.Ct. Bank groups say the focus on capital rules in Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr's report on Silicon Valley Bank are misguided. 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. As to the imagination test, the court explained that "[a] person would not be likely to picture a shopping center upon first hearing the name `Rodeo Collection'" and that "some imagination" was necessary to associate the word "collection" with the collection of shops and restaurants that make up the shopping centers. 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. (Martin, James) (Filed on 12/11/2009) Modified on 12/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. at 12, Dkt. (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. Thus, the Court concludes that "Sand Hill Advisors" is primarily geographically descriptive. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, Declaration - DECLARATION OF ADAM B. (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. 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. "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." 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992). at 13-18. 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."). Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. Whether a mark has acquired secondary meaning generally presents a question of fact. (Entered: 12/22/2009), Proposed Order re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. (Hill Depo. Declaration of Albert R. Hill, Jr. in Support of 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed bySand Hill Advisors LLC. Motions due by 1/12/2010. (Entered: 01/28/2009), ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 15 U.S.C. 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." (Id. Here, there is no dispute that Sand Hill can be construed to mean that Plaintiff is an advisory firm based in the Sand Hill areaand indeed, that name was selected by Plaintiff because they, in fact, were then located on Sand Hill Road. 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. The marks here are identical, which, at first blush, appears to favor Plaintiff. "Not surprisingly, under this standard, defendants are `rarely' awarded attorney fees in trademark infringement cases." Because "Sand Hill Advisors" is descriptive, it is not entitled to protection unless it has acquired secondary meaning. 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. 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. at 67:24-68:3; Williams Decl. (Related document(s) 48 ) (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/28/2009) Modified on 12/30/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir.2009). xref STRUCK'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, 7/21/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT ADAM B. The Articles of Registration identify Defendant's "[t]ype of business" as follows: "To engage in any lawful business for which limited liability companies may be organized in California including real estate activities, finance and advisory services." However, descriptive marks may acquire distinctiveness through use in commerce. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 2/16/10. B.) 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). q (Entered: 12/22/2009), Reply Memorandum re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. (Hill Decl. *1122 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket 36) is GRANTED. 2:23-MC-00075 | 2023-02-15, U.S. District Courts | Other | 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. 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. %%EOF (Entered: 12/11/2009), Memorandum in Opposition re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Here, after considering each of the Sleekcraft factors, the Court concluded that while Plaintiff and Defendant share the same mark, they offer completely distinct services to distinct consumers in separate markets, and there was but a paucity of evidence of actual confusion. As set forth in the Court's summary judgment order, Defendant raised a number of potentially viable arguments to show that its mark is suggestive, notwithstanding Plaintiff's acknowledgement. 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. Since 1999, Defendant has closed between seven to ten commercial real estate transactions. 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." 's Mot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria Founded Date Jan 1, 1982. In what amounts to a final blow to Antiochs Measure T and the environmentalists efforts to stop the long-planned new home developments in the citys Sand Creek area, on June 7, 2021, a Contra Costa Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Oak Hill Park Company in their lawsuit against the City of Antioch to prevent the council from Fed.R.Civ.P. See MSJ Order at 13-14, Dkt. "Marks are often classified in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness; they may be (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful." startxref WebCase No. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 0000005085 00000 n 30, 2007) (citations omitted). "This acquired distinctiveness is generally called `secondary meaning.'" Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. See Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 348-49. (Entered: 01/30/2009), JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and Proposed Order, filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC., Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 15-20, Dkt. 0000001331 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. 58, Filing 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. See One Indus., LLC v. Jim O'Neal Distrib., Inc., 578 F.3d 1154, 1164 (9th Cir.2009) ("When similar marks permeate the marketplace, the strength of the mark decreases. Company Type For Profit. Her commentary begins at the 3:51 mark. 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. All Rights Reserved. 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. 0000005059 00000 n Co., Inc. v. Enco Mfg. Complaint; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. There also is no evidence that anyone has confused Plaintiff with Defendant. (Id. (Davidson's Reply Decl. Id. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC Filing 92 AMENDED ORDER re 91 Order, Terminate Motions,,,,,. The top five bank holding companies have combined total consumer loan portfolios of more than $1.8 trillion as of December 31, 2022. at 6. (Court Reporter: Not Reported) (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/13/2010) Modified on 1/15/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Yet, there is no evidence to support Plaintiff's assertion that "Sand Hill" evokes an "entrepreneurial" spirit. 's Mot. (Id.). Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC. The common use of an advertising medium (i.e., brochures and banners) is not probative of whether they are disseminated to the same audience. DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk, U.S. District Courts | Other | ANE Holdings, LLC et al. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) Modified on 6/2/2010. 1997). To request information suppression, updates, or additions, contact us about this docket. We worked in that area. 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." The Fiduciary Network-affiliated firm revealed on Wednesday that it had accessed the funds through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). 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"). (Mot. 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. 1989); Grupo Gigante SA De CV v. Dallo & Co., Inc., 391 F.3d 1088, 1107 n. 1 (9th Cir.2004). (Entered: 12/28/2009), *** FILED IN ERROR. at 68:4-6.) 2.) Notwithstanding that finding, the Court disagrees with Defendant that Plaintiff's arguments were "frivolous." 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. "Convergent marketing channels increase the likelihood of confusion." 0000013022 00000 n Cons Only location is in downtown Palo Alto, not in the hub of the city or on the legendary Sand Hill Road. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 36 ) (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009), Declaration of Rachel R. Davidson in Support of 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed bySand Hill Advisors LLC. 0000002396 00000 n Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James, on 3/1/2010. ORDER, Motions terminated: 84 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLCREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC, 85 MOTION for Reconsideration re 84 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLCREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC MOTION for Reconsideration re 84 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLCREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC, 64 Report and Recommendations, Order Referring Motion, 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC.. at 1218-19. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2009) Modified on 2/25/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Plaintiff's argument is unpersuasive. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). The mere fact that a mark references a geographic location does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the mark is descriptive. This Order terminates all pending matters in the Docket. However, the mark "Sand Hill Advisors" leaves little to the imagination. 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.