(Opp'n at 13-14.) WebPlaintiff, Sand Hill Advisors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, filed the instant service mark infringement action under the Lanham Act seeking to prevent Defendant, Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's likelihood of confusion claim was "frivolous." 0000000016 00000 n at 12-13. STRUCK, ET AL. To request information suppression, updates, or additions, contact us about this docket. 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. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm't Inc., 581 F.3d 1138, 1145 (9th Cir. 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. B.) 2753. (Williams Depo. (Entered: 05/21/2009), CERTIFICATION OF MEDIATION Session 5/19/2009, case not settled, no follow up contemplated, mediation complete. 's Mot. at 23:3-15; Williams Decl. The amount of protection accorded to a particular mark is a function of its distinctiveness. In addition, Defendant ignores the evidence proffered by Plaintiff, and cited by the Magistrate, that Plaintiff desired to protect the goodwill that it believed it had established by operating under the Sand Hill Advisors name. Plaintiff's desire to protect such interests is a legitimate one. (Id. 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. Under that standard, the Court is persuaded that "Sand Hill Advisors" means exactly what it says: It describes a geographic location where Plaintiff offers advisory services. WebCompany profile page for Sand Hill Advisors Inc including stock price, company news, press releases, executives, board members, and contact information 3-5 d), filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC, Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 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." 2505. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added). Of Grand View, 84 Video/newsstand, Inc. v. Thomas Sartini. 's Mot. at 51:6-52:14; Williams Decl. The firm is the successor-in-interest to CLW Financial Services, Inc., a company founded in 1982 by Jane Williams, Gary Conway and Joseph Luongo. L.R. 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 6. L.R. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. 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. The Court thus finds that this factor favors Defendant. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION to Of Frank D. Rorie JR. Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. (Attachments: # 1 Davidson Declaration In Support of Defendant's Ex Parte Application, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Defendant's Ex Parte Application)(Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009), Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge James Larson. Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 354. . 2004) ("Is the mark the name of the place or region from which the goods actually come? The Fiduciary Network-affiliated firm revealed on Wednesday that it had accessed the funds through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). for Summ. 0000001032 00000 n Plaintiff argues that "Advisors" requires imagination because it does not describe "wealth management" services in particular. *1109 Rachel R. Davidson of K & L Gates, LLP for Defendant, Sand Hill Advisors. 4 and Ex. "An expert survey of purchasers can provide the most persuasive evidence of secondary meaning." Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/1/2010. Not true. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 0000001069 00000 n The court has the discretion under Lanham Act to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in "exceptional cases." Surfvivor Media, 406 F.3d at 631-32. Sand Hill Advisors Inc - Company Profile and News D.) At the time of the most recent name change, Plaintiff was located at 3000 Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, California, which is part of what is commonly referred to as the "Silicon Valley." 2005). Thus, despite Defendant's protestations the contrary, Mr. Conway's deposition testimony does not show that Plaintiff "knew" that it lacked a protectable mark. 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." at 67:24-68:3; Williams Decl. Whether a mark has acquired secondary meaning generally presents a question of fact. Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and [3] Plaintiff's assertion that "Sand Hill Advisors" is suggestive also is at odds with Mr. Conway's acknowledgment the founders selected such name because it was "a more generic title." Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James, on 3/1/2010. WebIAPD provides information on Investment Adviser firms regulated by the SEC and/or state securities regulators. As such, other advisory companies are more likely to refer to "Sand Hill" and "Advisors" in describing or advertising their services. (McCaffrey Depo. Filing 92. See Stephen W. Boney, 127 F.3d at 827 (finding that plaintiff had a "legitimate objective" in filing suit "to `preserve the right to use the name if and when I want to use it'"). HWv6}WGj}I-Y]Ih RdJRx>#wHY 8}9|n{oXxlW0A(x{3|ZUzjlWgQ?mf7Es2P2AB& nwdse%7YPI*eoFH1GI!| In view of the dearth of evidence of actual confusion, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund II GP, LLC (Defendant); Divergence Digital Currency Management LLC (Defendant); Divergence Digital Currency GP LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Special Situations GP LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Special Situations Management LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Stage Agnostic GP LLC (Defendant); Struck Scratch LLC (Defendant); Struck Scratch Series B LLC (Defendant); Struck Scratch Series A LLC (Defendant); Ignis SPV LLC (Defendant); Ignis Series B LLC (Defendant); Probitas SPV LLC (Defendant); Vectio SPV LLC (Defendant); Zero SPV LLC (Defendant); Serico SPV LLC (Defendant); Struck PF Special Opportunity LLC (Defendant); Struck OTI Special Opportunity LLC (Defendant); SC Tectus SPV LLC (Defendant); Struck Hoco LLC (Defendant); Struck A43 LLC (Defendant); Struck AHC Special Opportunity LLC (Defendant); Zero Series B SPV LLC (Defendant); As to, Pursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration scheduled for 06/24/2021 at 09:00 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department R Not Held - Rescheduled by Party was rescheduled to 08/03/2021 09:00 AM, Case Management Conference scheduled for 09/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department R, Case assigned to Hon. at 1219. (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. 15 U.S.C. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. Docket Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. (Miller, Katherine) (Filed on 2/3/2009) Modified on 2/4/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 0000005191 00000 n These undisputed facts demonstrate the undeniably geographic significance of the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/16/10. WebFebruary 17, 2023 Sand Hill Global Advisors, registered in 2000, serves 9 state (s) with a licensed staff of 14 advisors. DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk, U.S. District Courts | Other | (Entered: 12/22/2009), Proposed Order re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. (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. Docketof Court Order Continuing CMC; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. (Entered: 02/03/2009), Certificate of Interested Entities by Sand Hill Advisors LLC identifying Corporate Parent Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc. for Sand Hill Advisors LLC. As noted, the "need test" measures the extent to which a mark is necessary for competitors to identify their goods and services. Id. 57. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2008) (Entered: 11/06/2008), COMPLAINT against Sand Hill Advisors LLC (Filing fee $350, receipt number 34611025084). [2] "[T]he only difference between a trademark and a service mark is that a trademark identifies goods while a service mark identifies services. 's Mot. However, descriptive marks may acquire distinctiveness through use in commerce. M2 Software, Inc. v. Madacy, 421 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005). AMENDED ORDER re 91 Order, Terminate Motions,,,,,,. 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.'" 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. (Court Reporter: Not Reported) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/18/2009) Modified on 2/20/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 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." Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/20/09. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 2/16/10. Ex. Legal Name Sand Hill Global Advisors, LLC. 72(b)(1); Civ. (Id. 0000012780 00000 n See Arrow Fastener Co., Inc. v. Stanley Works, 59 F.3d 384, 393 (2d Cir. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/5/2010. Id. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Founded Date Jan 1, 1982. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services. of Court Order Continuing CMC; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2009) Modified on 1/6/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). On November 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in this Court, alleging a single claim for service mark infringement under the Lanham Act. 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). Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot meet either element of the test for service mark infringement, as a matter of law. [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. The record unequivocally establishes that Plaintiff and Defendant's respective businesses share little, if anything, in common. 7@t020B bNq E 0000013022 00000 n 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 1502(e)(2). (Date Filed: 2/18/2009). 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. Sand Hill Global Advisors 650-854-9150 Visit Site add_a_photo Overall info 5.0 Year Registered Feb 28, 2023 CNBC Halftime Report: Rising Interest Rates on Valuation Multiples | February 10, 2023 (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2009) (Entered: 05/20/2009), Letter from Mediator, James Gilliland, dated 3/5/2009. 33 0 obj <> endobj Applied Info. 0000000940 00000 n Aside from being devoid of evidentiary support, Plaintiff's argument misses the point. 0000004838 00000 n (McCaffrey Depo. J. Case reassigned to Hon. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia. 30, 2007) (citations omitted). Applied Info Sciences Corp., 511 F.3d at 969-970. ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. at 68:25-69:25; 79:1-12.) Prior to March 25, 2000, Defendant was registered with the California Secretary of State under the *1117 "Sand Hill Advisors" mark, which it began using shortly thereafter. VS ADAM B. That section states, in relevant part, as follows: "The Director may accept as prima facie evidence that the mark has become distinctive, as used on or in connection with the applicant's goods in commerce, proof of substantially exclusive and continuous use thereof as a mark by the applicant in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made." See, e.g., Williams Decl. Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 791 (9th Cir. Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk. See Davidson Decl. 28 U.S.C. (Mot. Where the mark is not registered, as in the instant case, a plaintiff must establish that its mark either is inherently distinctive, or has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning. STIPULATION AND ORDER: To Allow Defendant to Amend Answer, Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 5/27/09. (Williams Decl. (Hill Decl. Indus. 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). 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). In a trademark infringement action, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the defendant use of the same or similar mark is likely to cause confusion based upon consideration of the factors set forth in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 448-49 (9th Cir. (Martin, James) (Filed on 1/22/2010) Modified on 1/25/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). As a result, Plaintiff changed its state of incorporation from California to Delaware. (Opp'n at 23.) 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. 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. Modified on 11/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). L.) In contrast, Defendant merely purchases, owns, sells, manages and leases commercial properties for its own account. 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." Brenda Vingiello is a Chief Investment Officer at Sand Hill Global Advisors based in Palo Alto, California. 0000002831 00000 n 0000001003 00000 n *** Declaration of Rachel R. Davidson in Support of 47 Reply Memorandum filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 62-3. Within fourteen days of service of the proposed findings and recommendations, "any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court." 41, Filing Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. 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." 31 0 obj<>stream 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Prods., Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 718 F.2d 1201, 1206 (1st Cir. Pl. Answer; Filed by: Adam B. Because "Sand Hill Advisors" is descriptive, it is not entitled to protection unless it has acquired secondary meaning. 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 0000005344 00000 n 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. (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/15/2008) Modified on 12/16/2008 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Opp'n at 22.) And so that was our address, but we felt it was an address that we wanted to trumpet. WebSAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Dkt. (Entered: 12/11/2009), Memorandum in Opposition re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. "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." 0000002317 00000 n Fed.R.Civ.P. 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. at 1218. at 66:1-3.) 0000000736 00000 n As support for this proposition, Plaintiff cites this Court's decision in Instant Media, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2007 WL 2318948 at *13 (N.D.Cal. But, advertising, standing alone, does not establish secondary meaning. Only admissible evidence may be considered in ruling on a motion for motion for summary judgment. A.) (Related document(s) 48 ) (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/28/2009) Modified on 12/30/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Operating Status Active. 28 U.S.C. Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., *1116 Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 991 (9th Cir.2006). 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. % 4.) Sand Hill Advisors, LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors, LLC :: California Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System. DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 12/23/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). 0000002351 00000 n Id. (Entered: 01/05/2009), ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Ex. 's Mot. Save 25% on a pre-paid one year subscription. "Exceptional circumstances can be found when the non-prevailing party's case is groundless, unreasonable, vexatious, or pursued in bad faith." Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 769, 112 S.Ct. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2010) Modified on 6/2/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes summary judgment if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In fact, Plaintiff readily acknowledges that Defendant places its banners on buildings while Plaintiff uses them at sponsored events. IAPD - Investment Adviser Public Disclosure - Homepage xref 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. Sand Hill Global Advisors was founded in 1982 and is based in Palo Alto, California. Since 1999, Defendant has closed between seven to ten commercial real estate transactions. SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC v. SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC To update this case yourself, sign into PACER (paid PACER subscription required). Vision Sports, Inc. v. Melville Corp., 888 F.2d 609, 615 (9th Cir. 2009). Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC 10 Id. Def. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. As support, Plaintiff relies on Rodeo Collection Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir.1987). 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. Here, the services offered by Plaintiff and Defendant are fundamentally distinct. (Hill Decl. Thus, despite the fact that the marks at issue are identical, the Court finds that the undisputed fact that the parties operate in different markets involving distinct consumers and are not competitors renders this factor, at best, neutral. As the Magistrate correctly found, Mr. Conway merely stated that he recalled having raised the issue of seeking trademark protection with co-founder Jane Williams and the company's outside counsel. See Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! Factual findings are reviewed for clear error. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Non-Government Works Copyright 2001-2023 Think Computer Corporation. Plaintiff is a self-styled "wealth management" firm currently located in Menlo Park, California. The record confirms that Plaintiff proffered evidence regarding it various marketing and promotional efforts using the SAND HILL ADVISORS name. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/19/09. Although Plaintiff and Defendant share the same mark, they offer completely distinct services to distinct consumers in separate markets. . Seeing developments that could cause 5% pullback: Sand Hill Global Advisors CIO. 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. (McCaffrey Depo. ), 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. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2010). at 3. (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. See 2 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, 14:7 (4th ed. 0 Id. In re Supply Guys, Inc., 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1488, 1495 (T.T.A.B.2008) involved an appeal from the denial of a trademark registration, while Modular Cinemas of America, Inc. v. Mini Cinemas Corp., 348 F.Supp. 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. United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division. xb```f``Zuxb 1}rx@Rl3g3%WvU3_eXM?dKn ti edPF ) X& b`l y6%I*'.&h,(a`H31Hu@ 2d Plaintiff argues that its provision of real estate investment advice overlaps with Defendant's business. 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. Mark H. Epstein in Department R Santa Monica Courthouse, DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by: Clerk. (Davidson's Reply Decl. (quoting Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc., 531 F.2d 366, 379 (7th Cir. at 212:7-10. 7-1(b). Summary judgment may be entered in a trademark action "when no genuine issue of material fact exists." Forschner, 30 F.3d at 355 (emphasis added). 's Mot. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2010). J. at 16, Dkt. 1117(a). (Conway Depo. ), 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. 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. Ex. (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. The Court concludes that Plaintiff's mark is weak and that this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2009) Modified on 2/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF).
Lindsey Married At First Sight,
Man Parachutes Into Crocodile Farm,
Port Property Management Portland, Maine,
How Red Light Camera Work Qld,
Neutrogena Light Therapy Acne Mask Recall Refund,
Articles S