(McCaffrey Depo. Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. Plaintiff's desire to protect such interests is a legitimate one. (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. 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"). First Republic Bank was shuttered by regulators early Monday, and all its deposits and most of its assets were acquired by JPMorgan. Her commentary begins at the 3:51 mark. (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. Fed.R.Civ.P 72(b)(1); see Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1022 (9th Cir. The party seeking a fee award bears the burden of proving exceptional circumstances by "compelling proof." Defendant argues that Plaintiff lacked a reasonable basis for claiming that SAND HILL ADVISORS was suggestive or had acquired secondary meaning. J. 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. at 27:13-23.) These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia. 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 PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 51 . While both parties operate websites, Plaintiff has admitted that no one viewing Defendant's website would confuse it with Plaintiff's site. A.) The deal is expected to close in July or August, said Walter M. Pressey, Boston Private Financial's chief financial officer. Struck (Defendant); As to: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); Shima Capitol LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Cross-Defendant) et al. 's Mot. Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Classic Media, Inc. v. Mewborn, 532 F.3d 978, 990 (9th Cir. Ex. 2:23-MC-00075 | 2023-02-15, U.S. District Courts | Other | Stated simply, it is not. Docket Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. 0000002307 00000 n at 6. Def. THE KUHN FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. 42. Japan Telecom, 287 F.3d at 873, 875 (affirming summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to show secondary meaning). Defendant filed a reply memorandum, and the matter is now fully briefed. On appeal, the court addressed, among other things, the strength of the mark "Rodeo Collection." for Idaho's High Desert, Inc. v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814, 821 (9th Cir.1996). However, the mark "Sand Hill Advisors" leaves little to the imagination. Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE to be held between 01/13/10 ant 01/22/10; Case Referred to Mediation. 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. 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." "s1&8,2R8{(.ib,8"oa#r8X|/(~?|2L 0.eGPhk~oG?f(EIz>k @)e\+p\R8rsC/b9,,yNJilRhmZ5eirfiBb%_{@GFq6$t^S9:W-'Y). 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. (McCaffrey Depo. To update this case yourself, sign into PACER (paid PACER subscription required). 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, Stephen W. Boney, Inc. v. Boney Servs., Inc., 127 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir. 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. 0000012780 00000 n (Davidson Decl. Related services are generally more likely than unrelated services to confuse the public as to the provider of the services. "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].'" 's Mot. Contact Email info@sandhillglobaladvisors.com. Yet, there is no evidence to support Plaintiff's assertion that "Sand Hill" evokes an "entrepreneurial" spirit. Defendant does not provide any services to the public and has never provided any financial, investment or any other advice to any third party. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2009) (Entered: 09/17/2009), AMENDED ANSWER to 1 Complaint bySand 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. This is indicative of a descriptive mark. ORDER REFERRING MOTION re 61 Motion for Attorney Fees. *1109 Rachel R. Davidson of K & L Gates, LLP for Defendant, Sand Hill Advisors. Cal. Ex. Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir.2009). (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2010) Modified on 6/2/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Public Records Policy. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION to Of Frank D. Rorie JR. E, F, H, K, L; Williams Depo. (McCaffrey Depo. 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. 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. "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."). Banks react to Fed report. Signed by Mediator, James Gilliland, dated 5/19/2009. (E.g., Williams Decl. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. 02:50. Outside of work Brenda is a dedicated mother who loves spending time with her family and exploring all the Bay Area has to offer. See Order of Reference, Dkt. 0000000596 00000 n at 131:9-10; Davidson 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. 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. Filing 92. (Date Filed: 2/18/2009). Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/1/2010. (Entered: 12/11/2009), Memorandum in Opposition re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 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. Consequently, only evidence showing use of the mark in advertising prior to Defendant's use of the mark is probative of secondary meaning. 2753. (Davidson Decl. at 10-11. However, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a mark need not precisely describe the services provided in order to be descriptive. NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel, filed by Sand Hill Advisors, LLC. 44; Davidson Decl. 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. REFER TO DOCUMENT 50 . Sign up or sign in to contribute one. ), 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. Of Grand View, 84 Video/newsstand, Inc. v. Thomas Sartini. In reaching this conclusion, the court found: Sand Hill in the Silicon Valley is primarily geographically descriptive; NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING: Hearing set for 04/08/2010 at 10:00 AM, re 61 Motion for Attorney Fees. United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 2/16/10. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's clients and those individuals likely to do business with Defendant are sophisticated, and hence, are unlikely to be confused. (Entered: 12/15/2008), Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Lahoti, 586 F.3d at 1197. (Davidson Reply Decl. Get A.M.business scoops. at 111:25-112:11 149:3-151:7.) (Miller, Katherine) (Filed on 2/19/2009) Modified on 2/20/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Defendant's business focuses on purchasing, holding, selling, managing and leasing commercial real estate in the San Francisco Bay Area solely for its own investment purposes. 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 Applied Info. (Id.). See Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d 1062, 1076 (9th Cir.2006). 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. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. Of Vill. for Attorneys' Fees ("R&R"), Dkt. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Civ. 42. In addition, the Court may consider further evidence or remand the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 10; Davidson Decl. (wdblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2008) Modified on 12/16/2008 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2009), Declaration of Katherine R. Miller in Support of 42 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. HWv6}WGj}I-Y]Ih RdJRx>#wHY 8}9|n{oXxlW0A(x{3|ZUzjlWgQ?mf7Es2P2AB& nwdse%7YPI*eoFH1GI!| (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2009) Modified on 2/25/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Williams Depo. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. According to Defendant, Plaintiff supposedly knew that it had no protectable mark because it did not seek to register its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office until 2008, even though it had been using the SAND HILL ADVISORS mark since 1995. %PDF-1.3 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. *1122 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket 36) is GRANTED. 0 they may be (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful." 2002).[1]. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's likelihood of confusion claim was "frivolous." (Entered: 12/02/2009). Applied Info. 33 0 obj <> endobj This change was prompted by the decision of certain members of Plaintiff's management to reacquire equity from Boston Financial. However, evidence of secondary meaning must be established as of the time that the alleged infringer began using the mark in dispute. For reprint and licensing requests for this article, Swift works to bridge 'digital islands' of CBDCs, 20 bank holding companies with the largest consumer loan portfolios, Bank runs, fraud and faster payments: FedNow's impact on regulation, JPMorgan Chase, FDIC put an end to First Republic's slow bleed, Conflating issues or missing the point? Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., *1116 Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 991 (9th Cir.2006). 08/29/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department R at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Status Conference, Updated -- Denis Shmidt (Attorney): Organization Name changed from Orsus Gate LLP to HARDER STONEROCK LLP, Notice 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, Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by: Amnon Siegel (Attorney), Address for Amnon Siegel (Attorney) updated. F, Hill Depo. Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 769, 112 S.Ct. 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. 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. C.) In March 1999, Conway, Williams & Foster, Inc., again changed its name to Sand Hill Advisors, Inc. (Id. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Dkt. 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. "); Williams Depo. Plaintiff is a so-called "wealth management" firm that caters to high net worth individuals. "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." <<22A12329BFF53A46B00346188163DD72>]>> 0000001032 00000 n 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. 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. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 1/22/10. 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. (Entered: 12/22/2009), *** Exhibit C FILED IN ERROR. (Id.). 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). (Entered: 01/14/2010), Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 1/12/2010 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (Date Filed: 1/12/2010). STRUCK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, Declaration - DECLARATION OF DENIS SHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT ADAM B. On November 19, 2009, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Hill Decl. In certain cases, "[e]vidence of use and advertising over a substantial period of time is enough to establish secondary meaning." (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2009) (Entered: 03/05/2009), STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992). A.) 1983) (holding that the fact that plaintiff and defendant's respective products were used in the medical or health care field was insufficient to show that the goods were sufficiently similar to cause a likelihood of confusion). at 132:16-24, 134:7-10. DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. In the instant case, the "Sand Hill Mark" was never registered by Plaintiff, and as such, no presumption of secondary use could have arisen, even if Plaintiff now could show retrospectively that it meets the requirements of section 2(f). Sign up or sign in to contribute one. 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. Filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. The Court concludes that Plaintiff's mark is weak and that this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. Saundra Brown Armstrong for all further proceedings. 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. In Support Of Motion To Compel Arbitration: Name Extension changed from OF FRANK D. RORIE JR. (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. Here, there is scant evidence of actual confusion, which weighs in favor of Defendant. 32, Filing 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."
Currys No Order Confirmation Email, Folk Funeral Home Aiken, Sc Obituaries, University Of California Santa Cruz Colors Blue, Articles S