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. 72(b)(1); Civ. Applied Info. Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. STRUCK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, 7/8/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities, 7/21/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF DENIS SHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT ADAM B. On November 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in this Court, alleging a single claim for service mark infringement under the Lanham Act. 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. 's Mot. (Williams Decl. VIA TELEPHONE (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2009) (Entered: 02/09/2009), JOINT REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting, filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC, Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Ex. 0000013022 00000 n 0000002907 00000 n F at 2.) While both parties operate websites, Plaintiff has admitted that no one viewing Defendant's website would confuse it with Plaintiff's site. (Miller, Katherine) (Filed on 1/28/2009) Modified on 1/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). But it also presents new risks to manage. Co., 704 F.2d 1575, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1983) (common use of "DRC" mark not likely to cause confusion where products were "quite distinct"). 10 0 obj <> endobj The court has the discretion under Lanham Act to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in "exceptional cases." Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/19/09. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether, upon consideration of all terms comprising a composite mark, "the term is being used geographically." Relying on that standard, Plaintiff takes the position that Defendant did not begin using the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark in commerce until 2005, when started using the mark in connection with its website and on banners and flyers. The matter has been fully briefed, and is now ripe for determination. (Martin, James) (Filed on 12/11/2009) Modified on 12/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 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. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James, on 3/1/2010. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. 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. Plaintiff then sought to change its name from "Sand Hill Advisors, Inc." to "Sand Hill Advisors, LLC." at 66:1-3.) The mere fact that a mark references a geographic location does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the mark is descriptive. (Entered: 12/11/2009), OBJECTIONS to 38 Declaration of Albert R. Hill in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/5/2010. ), Since its founding in 1982, Plaintiff has undergone a number of name changes. <<22A12329BFF53A46B00346188163DD72>]>> (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). "); Williams Depo. "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."). Unlike Plaintiff, Defendant does not provide any advice to any third party, and has no involvement in providing wealth management services. at 212:7-10. at 67:24-68:3; Williams Decl. (Miller Decl. (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. J. at 16-17, Dkt. at 115:11-22.) Plaintiff summarily asserts that "there is no need for other wealth management firms to use `Sand Hill Advisors' in describing or advertising their services." Of Grand View, 84 Video/newsstand, Inc. v. Thomas Sartini. v. Joseph Rubin et al. at *13. Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. (Hill Decl. The record confirms that Plaintiff proffered evidence regarding it various marketing and promotional efforts using the SAND HILL ADVISORS name. Ex. Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 's Opp'n to Def. Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir.2009). for Summ. 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. Id. 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. In sum, the undisputed evidence establishes that Defendant was using the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark within five years of Plaintiff claimed dated of first use. 0000002307 00000 n Alliance for Open Soc. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/5/09. STRUCK'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT ADAM B. 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." 56(e); Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. at 24:1-14.) The greater the similarity between the two marks at issue, the greater the likelihood of confusion. 2753. (emphasis added). "s1&8,2R8{(.ib,8"oa#r8X|/(~?|2L 0.eGPhk~oG?f(EIz>k @)e\+p\R8rsC/b9,,yNJilRhmZ5eirfiBb%_{@GFq6$t^S9:W-'Y). 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). at 8-9. (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/22/2009) Modified on 12/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). A.) 0000005571 00000 n Founded Date Jan 1, 1982. Def. "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." STRUCK'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, Reply - REPLY REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ADAM B. STRUCKS MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, Cases involving other agreements or torts not classified elsewhere, 190, 1190, 2190, 3190, 4190, 4194, 5190, 5196. The Fiduciary Network-affiliated firm revealed on Wednesday that it had accessed the funds through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). 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. 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. at 24:1.). Sand Hill, which caters primarily to high-net-worth individuals in Northern California, has $900 million of assets under management. 0000013270 00000 n Fed.R.Civ.P. 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." (McCaffrey Depo. (Related document(s) 48 ) (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/23/2009) Modified on 12/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). at 131:9-10; Davidson Decl. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. On January 12, 2010, the parties appeared through counsel for oral argument on the motion. Though existing in various incarnations since 1982, in March 1995, Plaintiff changed its name to "Sand Hill Advisors, Inc." At that time, Plaintiff's offices were located at 3000 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, California. Co., Inc., 870 F.2d 512, 517 (9th Cir. 28 U.S.C. C AMENDED ORDER re 91 Order. (wdblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2008) Modified on 12/16/2008 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Williams Decl. Ex. (Davidson Decl. In general, the same analytical framework applies to infringement claims, irrespective of whether the marks or names are registered with the PTO. (Opp'n at 14.) 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. 3 and Ex. See Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 778 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir.1985) ("[Levi] Strauss was required to prove that the tab as used on shirts had acquired secondary meaning by 1976, when Blue Bell began using a protruding label on shirts."). 9.) Evidence that use of a mark or name has already caused actual confusion as to the source of a product or service is "persuasive proof that future confusion is *1121 likely." at 51:6-52:14; Williams Decl. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/1/2010. 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. The parties, through counsel, appeared for argument on the motion on January 12, 2010. Docket Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. 2505 (internal citations omitted). 6/17/2015: In re BTC Trading, Corp. and Ethan Burnside (Entered: 01/22/2010), STIPULATION and Proposed Order re Pretrial Schedule, by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 07:04. 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. Art Attacks Ink, LLC, 581 F.3d at 1146 (affirming summary judgment for alleged infringer where plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that its advertising was effective). Modified on 12/23/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (Related document(s) 48 ) (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/28/2009) Modified on 12/30/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). See MSJ Order at 11-12, Dkt. "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." "Sand Hill" refers to a geographical locale where Plaintiff operates its business. 0000004889 00000 n 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. (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/15/2008) Modified on 12/16/2008 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (McCaffrey Depo. at 111:25-112:11 149:3-151:7.) 57. (Entered: 12/02/2009). There's always a lot to do, and even more to learn. However, neither of cases cited by Plaintiff supports that proposition. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC. L.) At present, Plaintiff manages between $800 million to a $1 billion in assets. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC, Filing . 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. Of Trs. In view of the dearth of evidence of actual confusion, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. (E.g., Williams Decl. The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 's Mot. (Davidson Decl. STIPULATION AND ORDER re Pretrial Schedule. (Entered: 12/22/2009), Reply Memorandum re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. On November 19, 2009, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. 1979). Surfvivor Media, 406 F.3d at 631-32. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia. 04:53. A. degree from University of California , Santa Cruz and a B. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). 2:23-MC-00075 | 2023-02-15, U.S. District Courts | Other | ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. However, the cited deposition excerpts of Gary Conway, one of Plaintiff's founders, do not support Defendant's argument. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/15/10. See MSJ Order at 13-14, Dkt. The adviser's REGISTRATION status is listed below. See Fed.R.Civ.P. J. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. In opposing Defendant's summary judgment motion, Plaintiff argued that the presumption applied because it allegedly has been using the SAND HILL ADVISORS mark exclusively and continuously since March 29, 1995, and that Defendant did not begin using the mark until 2005, which more than five years after Plaintiff's date of first use. endstream endobj 11 0 obj<> endobj 12 0 obj<> endobj 13 0 obj<> endobj 14 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/ExtGState<>>> endobj 15 0 obj<> endobj 16 0 obj<> endobj 17 0 obj<> endobj 18 0 obj[/ICCBased 27 0 R] endobj 19 0 obj[20 0 R 21 0 R 22 0 R 23 0 R] endobj 20 0 obj<>stream This Order terminates all pending matters in the Docket. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION to Of Frank D. Rorie JR. Defendant contends that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in bad faith, ostensibly because it pursued the action knowing that it had no protectable mark. 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. 0000004984 00000 n SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company: Defendant - Appellee,: SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a California limited liability company: Case Number: *** Declaration of Rachel R. Davidson in Support of 47 Reply Memorandum filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Sciences Corp., 511 F.3d at 973. Japan Telecom, 287 F.3d at 871; see also Comm. In June 1982, CLW Financial Services, Inc., became known as Conway, Luongo, Williams, Inc. (Id. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2009) (Entered: 05/20/2009), Letter from Mediator, James Gilliland, dated 3/5/2009. (Entered: 05/21/2009), CERTIFICATION OF MEDIATION Session 5/19/2009, case not settled, no follow up contemplated, mediation complete. C-07-02258 RMW, 2008 WL 4542803 at *2 (N.D. Cal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 47 ) (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/22/2009) Modified on 12/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Entrepreneur Media, 279 F.3d at 1144. Id. Plaintiff's ancillary contention that "Sand Hill Advisors" satisfies the "need test" fares no better. at 89:9-12.) at 24:9-14.) Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, on February 26, 2009. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Non-Government Works Copyright 2001-2023 Think Computer Corporation. Mark H. Epstein in Department R Santa Monica Courthouse, DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by: Clerk. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. 4 and Ex. 42. (Id. Alternatively, the Court concluded that even if 2(f) were germane, Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate the requisite five years of exclusive and continuous use. 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, DocketPursuant 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, DocketCase Management Conference scheduled for 09/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department R, DocketCase assigned to Hon.
Pictures Of Lawanda Page Daughter,
Fiserv Conference 2022 Las Vegas,
Nottingham Police Alex Belfield,
Chicago Cubs Human Resources,
Articles S