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. 0000005571 00000 n
's Mot. (Id. In or about 2000, Boston Private Financial Holdings ("Boston Private") acquired a financial interest in Plaintiff. In October 1989, Conway, Luongo, Williams, Inc., changed its name to Conway, Williams & Foster, Inc. (Id. (Hill Depo. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992). Though Plaintiff was unsuccessful in pressing this point, the Court notes that Plaintiff's argument was not frivolous.2. Id. 1997). This is particularly true where the good or service is expensive. A subscription to PACER is required. (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. 28 U.S.C. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the matter under submission. 9.) (Hill Decl. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's likelihood of confusion claim was "frivolous." Notice of Settlement Conference and Settlement Conference Order for 1/13/2010 02:00 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Entrepreneur Media, 279 F.3d at 1148. Yet, there is no evidence to support Plaintiff's assertion that "Sand Hill" evokes an "entrepreneurial" spirit. 2007). Assuming without deciding that Plaintiff's date of first use was March 25, 1995, Defendant has presented uncontroverted evidence demonstrating that it used the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark within five years of that date. (Martin, James) (Filed on 12/11/2009) Modified on 12/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 0000005191 00000 n
at 24:11-14.) Defendant argues that "Sand Hill Advisors" is a "primarily geographical descriptive" mark lacking any secondary meaning, and hence, is not subject to protection. 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. 5 and Ex. Mark H. Epstein in Department R Santa Monica Courthouse, Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by: Clerk. (Entered: 12/15/2008), CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge. 0
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. at 68:25-69:25; 79:1-12.) [1] Plaintiff objects to the declaration of Albert Hill on the ground that he did not sign it under penalty of perjury. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/1/2010. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/16/10. (Entered: 12/02/2009). 2753. This argument is based on nothing but sheer speculation, which is not evidence. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2010). Vision Sports, Inc. v. Melville Corp., 888 F.2d 609, 615 (9th Cir. (Davidson Decl. ***Civil Case Terminated. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. (Id.). Of Vill. 's Opp'n to Def. Phone Number (650) 8549150. 0000010111 00000 n
(Williams Decl. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC In Brief: Boston Private to Buy Calif. Advisory Firm (Williams Decl. Sand Hill Advisors (Date Filed: 2/18/2009). at 12, Dkt. Sand Hill Property Company buys 'Four Corners' property at 66:1-3.) %PDF-1.3 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 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. If the PTO approves the registration under section 2(f), the presumption of validity conferred by the registration also "includes a presumption that the registered mark has acquired distinctiveness[.]" xb```f``Zuxb 1}rx@Rl3g3%WvU3_eXM?dKn ti edPF ) X& b`l
y6%I*'.&h,(a`H31Hu@ 2d
1117(a). 84. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. Aug. 13, 2007). Plaintiff's desire to protect such interests is a legitimate one. Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. 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." C-07-02258 RMW, 2008 WL 4542803 at *2 (N.D. Cal. (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. STRUCK'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, 7/21/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT ADAM B. 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." ANE Holdings, LLC et al. ), Defendant is a California limited liability company formed by business partners Bert Sandell and Albert Hill, Jr., located in Los Altos, California. Sand Hill Global Advisors 650-854-9150 Visit Site add_a_photo Overall info 5.0 Year Registered The top five bank holding companies have combined total consumer loan portfolios of more than $1.8 trillion as of December 31, 2022. SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company: Defendant - Appellee,: SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a California limited liability company: Case Number: Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE to be held between 01/13/10 ant 01/22/10; Case Referred to Mediation. Filing 92. But it also presents new risks to manage. 10; Davidson Decl. 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). Other business, many of which are located in the Silicon Valley (which encompasses the Sand Hill *1119 area), include "Sand Hill Angels," "Sand Hill Financial," "Sand Hill Finance," "Sand Hill Capital," "Sand Hill Econometrics," "Sand Hill Equity Research," "Sand Hill Partners," "Sand Hill Consulting Associates," and "Sand Hill Group LLC." Co-founder Jane Williams similarly confirmed the geographical significance of "Sand Hill." The marks here are identical, which, at first blush, appears to favor Plaintiff. Indus. 30, 2007) (citations omitted). Modified on 11/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Even if section 2(f) were applicable, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the requisite five years of exclusive and continuous use. However, the mark "Sand Hill Advisors" leaves little to the imagination. (quoting Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc., 531 F.2d 366, 379 (7th Cir. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Dkt. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC, Filing Banks react to Fed report. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC WebSAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, vs. Sand Hill Global Advisors Review Brenda received a B. v. Joseph Rubin et al. (Entered: 01/30/2009), JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and Proposed Order, filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC., Sand Hill Advisors LLC. The Court has concluded above that "Sand Hill Advisors" is primarily geographically descriptive, which supports the conclusion that the mark is weak. In fact, Plaintiff readily acknowledges that Defendant places its banners on buildings while Plaintiff uses them at sponsored events. (Martin, James) (Filed on 12/11/2009) Modified on 12/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 02:50. 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. 2.) 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 Indeed, Mr. Conway admitted that Defendant is not a competitor of Plaintiff. q
69, Filing "Exceptional circumstances can be found when the non-prevailing party's case is groundless, unreasonable, vexatious, or pursued in bad faith." AMENDED ORDER re 91 Order, Terminate Motions,,,,,,. AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979). Civ. "This acquired distinctiveness is generally called `secondary meaning.'" The Fiduciary Network-affiliated firm revealed on Wednesday that it had accessed the funds through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. Whether a mark has acquired secondary meaning generally presents a question of fact. (Entered: 02/19/2009), CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 2/18/2009 02:45 PM. 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. If the answer is yes, then the geographic term is probably used in a descriptive sense, and secondary meaning is required for protection.").[3]. WebSAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Dkt. 0000012780 00000 n
*1122 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket 36) is GRANTED. A subscription to PACER is required. Plaintiff's assertion that the parties overlap in the area of real estate services paints with too broad a brush. Oct. 10, 2008) ("prevailing on the merits alone does not create a presumption that the suit was vexatious or in bad faith"). IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, 7/8/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ADAM B. (Id. 0000000016 00000 n
's Opp'n to Def. Plaintiff does not address, let alone dispute, Defendant's contention that neither party has evinced any intention to expand its business into the other's market. 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. Contact Email info@sandhillglobaladvisors.com. Why is this public record being published online? 0000002583 00000 n
Def. "Marks are often classified in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness; they may be (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful." at 47:2-73:8; Creighton Depo. 5.) ("MSJ Order"), Dkt. (E.g., Williams Decl. Sand Hill Advisors Inc - Company Profile and News 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. Home | Sand Hill Global Advisors (McCaffrey Depo. The similarity of the marks, proximity of the goods or service and marketing channels used constitute "the controlling troika in the Sleekcraft analysis," GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir.2000), and are considered the most important, see Brookfield Commc'ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm't Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1055 n. 16 (9th Cir.1999). (Opp'n at 22-23.) 0000000016 00000 n
Signed by the Executive Committee on December 16, 2008. As support, Plaintiff relies on Rodeo Collection Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir.1987). Thane Int'l, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 305 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir.2002). 78(b); N.D. Cal. This change was prompted by the decision of certain members of Plaintiff's management to reacquire equity from Boston Financial. Hill v. Snyder | American Civil Liberties Union Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Plaintiff then sought to change its name from "Sand Hill Advisors, Inc." to "Sand Hill Advisors, LLC." The recommendation of the Magistrate is ADOPTED and Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees is DENIED. The record unequivocally establishes that Plaintiff and Defendant's respective businesses share little, if anything, in common. at 769, 112 S.Ct. 2505 (internal citations omitted). 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." 0000004889 00000 n
The Ninth Circuit has established eight factors that are relevant to this determination: (1) the strength of the plaintiff's mark; (2) proximity of the goods or services; (3) similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing channels used; (6) type of goods or services and the degree of care likely to be used by the purchaser; (7) defendant's intent in selecting the mark; and (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines. See 2 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, 14:7 (4th ed. %%EOF
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. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment)(Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009), Ex Parte Application to Move the Hearing Date for Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Broadly speaking, suggestive, arbitrary and fanciful marks are entitled to protection, whereas a descriptive mark is not unless it has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2008) (Entered: 11/06/2008), Summons Issued as to Sand Hill Advisors LLC. L.R. 15 U.S.C. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, on February 26, 2009. In any event, little imagination would be required for a consumer to connect "Sand Hill Advisors" with other companies that are located in or near the Sand Hill area whose service is providing advice. (Davidson Reply Decl. 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. "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." The case did not settle (Date Filed: 1/13/2010). Yida Gao et al v. Struck et al 1:2023mc00086 | US District Court for However, evidence of secondary meaning must be established as of the time that the alleged infringer began using the mark in dispute. 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." 42. (Entered: 12/11/2009), Memorandum in Opposition re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. (Id.) 04:53. 28 U.S.C. See Order of Reference, Dkt. These undisputed facts demonstrate the undeniably geographic significance of the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark. Neither party discusses the threshold question of whether section 2(f) is germane in an infringement case where the mark is unregistered. Sand Hill Advisors LLC: Defendant: Sand Hill Advisors LLC: Case Number: 4:2008cv05016: Filed: November 4, 2008: Court: US District Court for the Northern District 0000002447 00000 n
(Opp'n at 17.) Id. "s1&8,2R8{(.ib,8"oa#r8X|/(~?|2L 0.eGPhk~oG?f(EIz>k @)e\+p\R8rsC/b9,,yNJilRhmZ5eirfiBb%_{@GFq6$t^S9:W-'Y). The most favorable inference that may be drawn from the record regarding the similarities in the parties' services is that both, in a broad sense, have some connection to "real estate." (Davidson Decl. (Opp'n at 13-14.) Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. 9; McCaffrey Depo. J. at 16, Dkt. Plaintiff's argument is unpersuasive. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Non-Government Works Copyright 2001-2023 Think Computer Corporation. Id. On February 9, 2010, Defendant filed a motion for attorneys' fees, which was referred to Magistrate Judge James ("the Magistrate"). at 10-11. 0000005085 00000 n
On November 19, 2009, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. 44; Davidson Decl. 636(b)(1); see Fed.R.Civ.P 72(b). A.) 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. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) Modified on 6/2/2010. Id. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division. WebIAPD provides information on Investment Adviser firms regulated by the SEC and/or state securities regulators. The Court concludes that Plaintiff's mark is weak and that this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. 47 0 obj<>stream
(lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2010) Modified on 1/27/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Plaintiff attempts to analogize this case to Rodeo Collection, and argues that "Sand Hill Advisors" is suggestive, and not primarily geographically descriptive as claimed by Defendant. 's Mot. at 131:9-10; Davidson Decl. 's Mot. (Id. startxref
In certain cases, "[e]vidence of use and advertising over a substantial period of time is enough to establish secondary meaning." Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/22/2010. Defendant does not provide any services to the public and has never provided any financial, investment or any other advice to any third party. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1144 (9th Cir.2002). endstream
endobj
21 0 obj<>stream
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. 3-5 d), filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC, Sand Hill Advisors LLC. As an initial matter, Defendant argues that since Plaintiff's founders acknowledged choosing SAND HILL ADVISORS because of its geographical significance, i.e., the company's then new location on Sand Hill Road in the heart of the Silicon Valley, Plaintiff was foreclosed from arguing that the SAND HILL ADVISORS mark was anything other than descriptive.
8 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND 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. Plaintiff argues that this factor is germane only where the marks are different, and inapposite in cases such as the present where the marks are identical. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2010. % Typically, Defendant purchases commercial property, which it then assigns to another limited liability company or entity owned by Messrs. Sandell and Hill. 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. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/16/10. WebCase No. 92, Filing Plaintiff argues that its provision of real estate investment advice overlaps with Defendant's business. 6/17/2015: In re BTC Trading, Corp. and Ethan Burnside Sand Hill, which caters primarily to high-net-worth individuals in Northern California, has $900 million of assets under management. Defendant contends that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in bad faith, ostensibly because it pursued the action knowing that it had no protectable mark. (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/12/2008) (Entered: 12/12/2008), CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Sand Hill Advisors LLC re 3 ADR Scheduling Order, 2 Summons Issued, 1 Complaint (Martin, James) (Filed on 11/10/2008) (Entered: 11/10/2008), REPORT on the filing of an action regarding Service Mark Infringement (cc: form mailed to register). See Davidson Decl. 57. (Entered: 05/21/2009), CERTIFICATION OF MEDIATION Session 5/19/2009, case not settled, no follow up contemplated, mediation complete. 's Mot. Lahoti, 586 F.3d at 1201. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2010). J. Michael Keyes Related services are generally more likely than unrelated services to confuse the public as to the provider of the services. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). 2.) <<4841BC4BF8452A4DA9F87B341F4BADE3>]>>
Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker, Cunney v. Bd. 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. The Court conducted an hour-long hearing on the motion on January 12, 2010. 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. 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.. (Opp'n at 14.) 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. startxref
15 U.S.C. On November 19, 2009, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. However, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a mark need not precisely describe the services provided in order to be descriptive. 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. at 24:1-14.) 's Mot. As to the imagination test, the court explained that "[a] person would not be likely to picture a shopping center upon first hearing the name `Rodeo Collection'" and that "some imagination" was necessary to associate the word "collection" with the collection of shops and restaurants that make up the shopping centers. Summary judgment may be entered in a trademark action "when no genuine issue of material fact exists." 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. Rather, the salient question for purposes of ascertaining whether a mark is descriptive is whether the mark conveys information regarding the nature of the goods or services. After considering the motion on the papers submitted, the Magistrate issued a thorough, fourteen-page order in which she recommended denying Defendant's motion.
Harvard Acceptance Rate By Race,
Rewrite The Expression Without Using A Negative Exponent Calculator,
Casa Grande Dispatch Police Log,
Interpark Chicago Rates,
What Were The 17 Miracles,
Articles S