sand hill advisors lawsuit

Sciences Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 969-970 (9th Cir.2007). Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. 04:53. In November 2007, Plaintiff converted from a Delaware corporation to a Delaware limited liability company. 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. (Entered: 02/24/2009), ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for ALL Discovery purposes. (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. The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, which are summarized herein as they are pertinent to the issues that remain before this Court. 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. Summary judgment may be entered in a trademark action "when no genuine issue of material fact exists." WebREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2010. 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. "Marks are often classified in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness; they may be (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful." (Id. (Opp'n at 16.). Signed by Mediator, James Gilliland, dated 5/19/2009. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services. 's Mot. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/5/09. (Miller, Katherine) (Filed on 2/19/2009) Modified on 2/20/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. As such, even if section 2(f) could be applied to unregistered marks, the record demonstrates that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate the requisite five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use. Factual findings are reviewed for clear error. 's Mot. (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/15/2008) Modified on 12/16/2008 (cjl, COURT STAFF). Case reassigned to Hon. Whether a mark has acquired secondary meaning generally presents a question of fact. Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir.2009). (Entered: 12/11/2009), Declaration of Jane Williams in Support of 42 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. (Conway Depo. See Aromatique, 28 F.3d at 870. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1144 (9th Cir.2002). "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." Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 06/23/10. (Conway Depo. 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. "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].'" 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. Vision Sports, Inc. v. Melville Corp., 888 F.2d 609, 615 (9th Cir. Filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. WebSand Hill Advisors LLC. Sign up or sign in to contribute one. 2505. YIDA GAO, ET AL. As the Court explained in its summary judgment ruling, the amount of protection accorded to a particular mark is a function of its distinctiveness. 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 NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING: Hearing set for 04/08/2010 at 10:00 AM, re 61 Motion for Attorney Fees. 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. 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. (Opp'n at 25.) (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, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U PART 1, # 22 Exhibit U PART 2, # 23 Exhibit U PART 3, # 24 Exhibit U PART 4)(Related document(s) 42 ) (Martin, James) (Filed on 12/11/2009) Modified on 12/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). ), 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. 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. "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."). Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. at 769, 112 S.Ct. Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk. 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. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2009) Modified on 11/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Outside of work Brenda is a dedicated mother who loves spending time with her family and exploring all the Bay Area has to offer. ), 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. 1052(f) (emphasis added). at 89:9-12.) (McCaffrey Depo. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. L.) At present, Plaintiff manages between $800 million to a $1 billion in assets. (Williams Decl. Plaintiff's ancillary contention that "Sand Hill Advisors" satisfies the "need test" fares no better. Neither party discusses the threshold question of whether section 2(f) is germane in an infringement case where the mark is unregistered. As noted, a descriptive mark cannot be registered with the PTO absent a showing of secondary meaning. at 12, Dkt. 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. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 1/22/10. 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed.R.Civ.P. Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 769, 112 S.Ct. Previously, Brenda was an Emeritus Boa rd Member at Boys & Girls Clubs of America and also held positions at CFA Society San Francisco, S&P Global. 4.) 26, US District Court for the Northern District of California, 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act). Continue reading Be the first to find this review helpful Consequently, only evidence showing use of the mark in advertising prior to Defendant's use of the mark is probative of secondary meaning. Struck (Defendant); As to: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); Shima Capitol LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Cross-Defendant) et al. 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. This is particularly true where the good or service is expensive. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2009) Modified on 1/6/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 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." ("MSJ Order"), Dkt. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James, on 3/1/2010. 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. 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." 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. "While an intent to confuse consumers is not required for a finding of trademark infringement, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion." Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System. ), 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"). (Williams Depo. Others say he should have named names. (Williams Decl. 61, 64, 84, 85 (Court Reporter: Not Reported) (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/13/2010) Modified on 1/15/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (McCaffrey Depo. 28 U.S.C. Sand Hill, which caters primarily to high-net-worth individuals in Northern California, has $900 million of assets under management. Rodeo Collection, 812 F.2d at 1218. In Support Of Motion To Compel Arbitration: Name Extension changed from OF FRANK D. RORIE JR. 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 Applied Info Sciences Corp., 511 F.3d at 969-970. WebSand Hill: a California Financial Planning and Wealth Management Firm, 245 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, 94301, United States (650) 854-9150 [email protected] (Mot. Here, the services offered by Plaintiff and Defendant are fundamentally distinct. Ex. 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. 's Opp'n to Def. (Entered: 01/05/2009), ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. 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. 1976)). 61, 64, 84, 85 Defendant. 's Mot. Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot meet either element of the test for service mark infringement, as a matter of law. Id. ORDER VACATING HEARING re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. (Entered: 01/21/2010), Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held on 1/13/10 before Magistrate Judge James Larson. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2009) Modified on 2/25/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 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). 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. at 3. Here, Plaintiff asserts that its evidence shows that since it changed its name in 1995 to "Sand Hill Advisors," it has advertised the mark through a variety of *1118 channels. %%EOF (Entered: 12/22/2009), Proposed Order re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 0000005085 00000 n See MSJ Order at 11-12, Dkt. Prods., Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 718 F.2d 1201, 1206 (1st Cir. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/16/10. SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company: Defendant - Appellee,: SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a California limited liability company: Case Number: 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. STIPULATION AND ORDER re Pretrial Schedule. for Summ. at 132:12-133:8; Conway Depo. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 11/19/09. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2010) Modified on 1/26/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 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. Pretrial Conference set for 2/16/2010 01:00 PM.. Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. Sand Hill Global Advisors 650-854-9150 Visit Site add_a_photo Overall info 5.0 Year Registered Sciences Corp. v. eBay Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. "A geographically descriptive term or phrase is one that designates geographical location and would tend to be regarded by buyers as descriptive of the geographic location or origin of the goods or services." Defendant does not provide any services to the public and has never provided any financial, investment or any other advice to any third party. Fed.R.Civ.P. See Davidson Decl. A, McCaffrey Depo. Ex. at 131:9-10; Davidson Decl. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 2/16/10. Id. 1052(f), to establish a presumption of secondary meaning. Defendant argues that "Sand Hill Advisors" is a "primarily geographical descriptive" mark lacking any secondary meaning, and hence, is not subject to protection. 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. 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.. 10. 58, Filing 's Mot. However, the mark "Sand Hill Advisors" leaves little to the imagination. Id. 2505. The Court found that Instant Media's mark was "conceptually weak because the I'M mark exists in a crowded field of trademarks using variations of `IM,' `I'm' and `I am.'" 7-1(b). 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.

Nascar Pit Crew Accident Today, Report Illegal Parking Sandwell, White Dancers On Soul Train, Shiawassee County Police Scanner, Warning Non Void Function Does Not Return A Value, Articles S