sand hill advisors lawsuit sand hill advisors lawsuit

(Opp'n at 22.) Plaintiff is a self-styled "wealth management" firm currently located in Menlo Park, California. 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"). 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. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the matter under submission. Because "Sand Hill Advisors" is descriptive, it is not entitled to protection unless it has acquired secondary meaning. 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. 0000000940 00000 n Co., Inc. v. Enco Mfg. However, evidence of secondary meaning must be established as of the time that the alleged infringer began using the mark in dispute. The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. 8 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND "A strong possibility that either party may expand his business to compete with the other will weigh in favor of finding that the present use is infringing." (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. xref Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. 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. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 51 . Pl. THE KUHN FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. AMENDED ORDER re 91 Order, Terminate Motions,,,,,,. "s1&8,2R8{(.ib,8"oa#r8X|/(~?|2L 0.eGPhk~oG?f(EIz>k @)e\+p\R8rsC/b9,,yNJilRhmZ5eirfiBb%_{@GFq6$t^S9:W-'Y). at 12-13. 1:23-MC-00086 | 2023-02-15, California Courts Of Appeal | Other | 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.. [1] Plaintiff objects to the declaration of Albert Hill on the ground that he did not sign it under penalty of perjury. See Aromatique, Inc. v. Gold Seal, Inc., 28 F.3d 863, 870 (8th Cir.1994) (plaintiff could not rely on presumption of secondary meaning where it alleged that defendant infringed in 1985, but the mark was not registered until 1988); 2 McCarthy 11:13 ("The presumption to which a 2(f) registration is entitled is not that the designation is inherently distinctive, but that it had acquired secondary meaning as of the date of registration.") 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."). (Hill Decl. The Court has concluded above that "Sand Hill Advisors" is primarily geographically descriptive, which supports the conclusion that the mark is weak. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2010) Modified on 6/25/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Miller Decl. at 13-18. (Opp'n at 23.) VS ADAM B. at 27:13-23 ("[W]e had been located at Sand Hill Road and actually were a very active part of the community around that area. In or about 2000, Boston Private Financial Holdings ("Boston Private") acquired a financial interest in Plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion, accompanied by objections to certain of the evidence offered by Defendant in support of its motion. Others say he should have named names. (Id. On January 12, 2010, the parties appeared through counsel for oral argument on the motion. Motions due by 1/12/2010. Id. 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. Seattle Trademark Lawyer for Summ. Gary Conway testified at his deposition that the founders selected the "Sand Hill" name because the firm's offices were located on Sand Hill Road and they wanted to "trumpet" their location due to its "cache." In addition, Defendant asserts that the only reason Plaintiff commenced this action was to obtain the right to register its mark with the California Secretary of State. Rodeo Collection, 812 F.2d at 1218. After considering the motion on the papers submitted, the Magistrate issued a thorough, fourteen-page order in which she recommended denying Defendant's motion. ), Since its founding in 1982, Plaintiff has undergone a number of name changes. 15 U.S.C. 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." Id. at 23:3-15; Williams Decl. 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." (Id. Hill v. Snyder | American Civil Liberties Union However, neither of cases cited by Plaintiff supports that proposition. In Support Of Motion To Compel Arbitration: Name Extension changed from OF FRANK D. RORIE JR. Thus, despite Defendant's protestations the contrary, Mr. Conway's deposition testimony does not show that Plaintiff "knew" that it lacked a protectable mark. startxref (Opp'n at 22.) Vision Sports, Inc. v. Melville Corp., 888 F.2d 609, 615 (9th Cir. Civ. 2548; Matsushita Elec. 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 0000002447 00000 n 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. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 11/19/09. "Marks are often classified in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness; they may be (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful." 2505. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 06/23/10. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. Modified on 12/23/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). Jury Trial set for 2/22/2010 08:30 AM. 2007). at 250, 106 S.Ct. Like Boston Private Financial, which manages about $4 billion of assets, Sand Hill has placed an emphasis on serving owners and operators of private businesses, a largely underserved market, Mr. Pressey said. See Davidson Decl. Defendant next argues that Plaintiff lacked any objective basis upon which to claim that SAND HILL ADVISORS is a suggestive mark entitled to protection under the Lanham Act. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Dhillon, Jas) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009), STIPULATION AND ORDER: To Allow Defendant to Amend Answer, Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 5/27/09. 47 0 obj<>stream 10. (Opp'n at 13.) 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 at 10-11. There also is no evidence that anyone has confused Plaintiff with Defendant. Finally, one place to get all the court documents we need. 41, Filing 0000002307 00000 n %PDF-1.4 A, McCaffrey Depo. 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). To request information suppression, updates, or additions, contact us about this docket. 33 15 Since 1999, Defendant has closed between seven to ten commercial real estate transactions. "Exceptional circumstances can be found when the non-prevailing party's case is groundless, unreasonable, vexatious, or pursued in bad faith." (McCaffrey Depo. Case Management Conference set for 2/10/2009 04:00 PM. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. Summary judgment may be entered in a trademark action "when no genuine issue of material fact exists." In Support Of Motion To Compel Arbitration: Name Extension changed from OF FRANK D. RORIE JR. Ex. 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. Here, the services offered by Plaintiff and Defendant are fundamentally distinct. The Court of Appeal had rejected Sand Hill's claims against Wells Fargo related to a 2011 lawsuit, which alleged a foreclosure auction of the center was not properly held. *1122 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket 36) is GRANTED. 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. 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). SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant. L.) At present, Plaintiff manages between $800 million to a $1 billion in assets. In particular, she concluded that Plaintiff had presented plausible grounds for its lawsuit and otherwise rejected Defendant's contention that this was an "exceptional" case warranting a fee award under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 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. (Opp'n at 14.) In June 2015, the SEC filed a settled administrative action against 2 entrepreneurs who offered and sold security-based swaps through a website called Sand Hill exchange and sought people to fund accounts at Sand Hill using dollars or bitcoins. On November 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in this Court, alleging a single claim for service mark infringement under the Lanham Act. at 769, 112 S.Ct. Sand Hill Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot meet either element of the test for service mark infringement, as a matter of law. 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." ), Defendant is a California limited liability company formed by business partners Bert Sandell and Albert Hill, Jr., located in Los Altos, California. 636(b)(1). 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, 13. C at 80:1-82:9, Dkt. Continue reading Be the first to find this review helpful Applied Info. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia. 0000013022 00000 n (Martin, James) (Filed on 12/11/2009) Modified on 12/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Filing 1 MOTION for a Protective Order - filed by Yida Gao, Sand Hill Advisors PR LLC, Shima Capital Management LLC. (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. Inc. v. US Agency Intern. WebDefendant Sand Hill Advisors LLCs stipulation to amend its Answer to assert additional Affirmative Defenses challenging Plaintiffs legal capacity and standing to bring its 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added). See Applied Info. As the Court explained in its summary judgment ruling, the amount of protection accorded to a particular mark is a function of its distinctiveness. Yellow Cab Co. of Sacramento v. Yellow Cab of Elk Grove, Inc., 419 F.3d 925, 930 (9th Cir.2005). We worked in that area. J. at 16-17, Dkt. Related services are generally more likely than unrelated services to confuse the public as to the provider of the services. The common use of an advertising medium (i.e., brochures and banners) is not probative of whether they are disseminated to the same audience. WebSand Hill Advisors LLC. (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). 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. "The `true test of secondary meaning' is the effectiveness of the advertising effort." at 24:11-14.) We are experts in guiding wealthy families and individuals through complex financial transitions. A. degree from University of California , Santa Cruz and a B. WebVenture Capital. M2 Software, Inc. v. Madacy, 421 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005). 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. Yet, there is no evidence to support Plaintiff's assertion that "Sand Hill" evokes an "entrepreneurial" spirit. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker, Cunney v. Bd. 0000001856 00000 n Aside from being devoid of evidentiary support, Plaintiff's argument misses the point. at 111:25-112:11 149:3-151:7.) v. Joseph Rubin et al. WebThe Michigan Supreme Court is providing the information on this website as a public service. If the answer is yes, then the geographic term is probably used in a descriptive sense, and secondary meaning is required for protection.").[3]. 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. (Hill Decl. 9; McCaffrey Depo. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC v. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC. at 51:6-52:14; Williams Decl. 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." 4 and Ex. Sign up or sign in to contribute one. "); Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a mark need not precisely describe the services provided in order to be descriptive. 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.