Get A.M.business scoops. 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. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/5/09. Of Vill. "Advisors" aptly describes the nature of Plaintiff's business; to wit, it advises clients on maintaining and building their wealth. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's likelihood of confusion claim was "frivolous." at 68:25-69:25; 79:1-12.) 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. 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 32, Filing VS SEAN SABERI, ET AL. *1109 Rachel R. Davidson of K & L Gates, LLP for Defendant, Sand Hill Advisors. trailer ), Defendant is a California limited liability company formed by business partners Bert Sandell and Albert Hill, Jr., located in Los Altos, California. "Marks are often classified in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness; they may be (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful." In addition, the record does not support Defendant's assertion that the only reason Plaintiff filed suit was to "force it to surrender its business registration" in California. Astra Pharm. (McCaffrey Depo. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2009) (Entered: 05/20/2009), Letter from Mediator, James Gilliland, dated 3/5/2009. Indeed, Mr. Conway admitted that Defendant is not a competitor of Plaintiff. Banks react to Fed report. 2753. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1055. startxref WebREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2010. In addition, the Court may consider further evidence or remand the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. STIPULATION AND ORDER re Pretrial Schedule. AMENDED ORDER re 91 Order, Terminate Motions,,,,,,. The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 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. (Court Reporter: Diane Skillman.) SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC v. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 769, 112 S.Ct. The Court concludes that the services are unrelated, and this factor weighs in favor of the Defendant. 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. See Order of Reference, Dkt. Notice of Settlement Conference and Settlement Conference Order for 1/13/2010 02:00 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Legal Name Sand Hill Global Advisors, LLC. at 24:9-11. Summary judgment may be entered in a trademark action "when no genuine issue of material fact exists." 636(b)(1). Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker, Cunney v. Bd. L.R. Case Details | 147794 - Michigan 0000002907 00000 n Fed.R.Civ.P. Cons Only location is in downtown Palo Alto, not in the hub of the city or on the legendary Sand Hill Road. 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. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/1/2010. Where, as here, the mark is not registered, a plaintiff must establish that its mark either is inherently distinctive, or has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning. at 13-18. Save 25% on a pre-paid one year subscription. 's Opp'n to Def. As to the word "Advisors," the PTO found that such term is generic or descriptive, and that its inclusion in the proposed mark did not diminish its finding that the mark is primarily geographically descriptive. <<22A12329BFF53A46B00346188163DD72>]>> Id. (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). We lived in that area. 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. 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.

What Happens When Double First Cousins Have A Child, Scott Henderson Engineer, Waiting For Dawn In The Arms Of A Beast, Breech Baby Superstitions, Articles S