MC/ SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Dkt. J. at 16, Dkt. "); Williams Depo. 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. The court has the discretion under Lanham Act to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in "exceptional cases." WebCompany profile page for Sand Hill Advisors Inc including stock price, company news, press releases, executives, board members, and contact information See MSJ Order at 13-14, Dkt. 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." 92, Filing The Court concludes that Plaintiff's mark is weak and that this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. Brenda Vingiello is a Chief Investment Officer at Sand Hill Global Advisors based in Palo Alto, California. Plaintiff summarily asserts that "there is no need for other wealth management firms to use `Sand Hill Advisors' in describing or advertising their services." Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 (1992). Surfvivor Media, 406 F.3d at 631-32. Id. 0000001160 00000 n The Federal Reserve's long-awaited real-time payment system is at the finish line. Id. 's Mot. 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. Inc., 287 F.3d 866, 871 (9th Cir.2002) (use of "Japan" in "Japan Telecom, Inc." did not "automatically make the trade name geographically descriptive"); Forschner Group, 30 F.3d at 355 ("That a phrase or term evokes geographic associations does not, standing alone, support a finding of geographic descriptiveness."). (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/12/2010) Modified on 1/13/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 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. However, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a mark need not precisely describe the services provided in order to be descriptive. (Entered: 01/21/2010), Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held on 1/13/10 before Magistrate Judge James Larson. at 24:11-14.) While that may have been one of Plaintiff's motivations, Defendant cites no authority to support the conclusion that such a desire is sufficient to justify the imposition of attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act. Intern. 02:50. Japan Telecom, 287 F.3d at 871; see also Comm. 0000000736 00000 n 0000004838 00000 n (Martin, James) (Filed on 12/11/2009) Modified on 12/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 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. (Williams Decl. 0000005191 00000 n Lahoti, 586 F.3d at 1197. The lack of overlap is underscored by the paucity of evidence of actual confusion, which consists of nothing more than a few misplaced calls and a misdelivered package over the course of the last ten years. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 06/23/10. 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. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Dkt. United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division. 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. Id. 72-3. As noted, the "need test" measures the extent to which a mark is necessary for competitors to identify their goods and services. 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. 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. 's Mot. 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. Sciences Corp., 511 F.3d at 973. Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. (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. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 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. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992). Since 1999, Defendant has closed between seven to ten commercial real estate transactions. (Hill Decl. Feb 28, 2023 CNBC Halftime Report: Rising Interest Rates on Valuation Multiples | February 10, 2023 Summary. Docketof Court Order Continuing CMC; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. Plaintiff's desire to protect such interests is a legitimate one. E at 128:22-129:1, Dkt. WebFebruary 17, 2023 Sand Hill Global Advisors, registered in 2000, serves 9 state (s) with a licensed staff of 14 advisors. This factor is not centered on a prospective customer or client's purchase decision, but rather, whether he or she is sufficiently sophisticated to discern the difference between the parties, notwithstanding their use of an identical or confusingly similar mark. 9.) Though Plaintiff was unsuccessful in pressing this point, the Court notes that Plaintiff's argument was not frivolous.2. See Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d 1062, 1076 (9th Cir.2006). Japan Telecom, 287 F.3d at 873, 875 (affirming summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to show secondary meaning). (E.g., Williams Decl. (Davidson's Reply Decl. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. (Hill Decl. Typically, Defendant purchases commercial property, which it then assigns to another limited liability company or entity owned by Messrs. Sandell and Hill. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2009) (Entered: 02/19/2009), Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 2/18/2009 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. (Miller Decl. 69, Filing 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. Defendant contends that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in bad faith, ostensibly because it pursued the action knowing that it had no protectable mark. 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. Docket Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. 72(b)(1); Civ. Plaintiff is a self-styled "wealth management" firm currently located in Menlo Park, California. <<4841BC4BF8452A4DA9F87B341F4BADE3>]>> 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 For these reasons, Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Evidence Offered in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket 45) are denied as moot. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/23/2009), RESPONSE to re 45 Objection to Evidence filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. (Hill Decl. THE KUHN FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. (Entered: 05/28/2009), STIPULATION to Amend Defendant Sand Hill Advisors LLC's Answer and Affirmative Defenses, filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC., Sand Hill Advisors LLC. "Sand Hill" refers to a geographical locale where Plaintiff operates its business. 7@t020B bNq E (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2009) Modified on 11/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 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. The party seeking a fee award bears the burden of proving exceptional circumstances by "compelling proof." Id. 1:23-MC-00086 | 2023-02-15, California Courts Of Appeal | Other | Applied Info. 578, 581-82 (S.D.N.Y.1972) addressed the issue of "use" to determine which party could establish priority to claim ownership of the mark. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. Messrs. Sandell and Hill filed their Limited Liability Company Articles of Organization with the California Secretary of State on April 27, 1999. Def. 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 at 1218-19. 4.) 10 0 obj <> endobj A. degree from University of California , Santa Cruz and a B. at 970. at 212:7-10. C.) In March 1999, Conway, Williams & Foster, Inc., again changed its name to Sand Hill Advisors, Inc. (Id. On September 3, 2009, the PTO rejected Plaintiff's application on the basis that "Sand Hill" is "primarily geographically descriptive" under 15 U.S.C. endstream endobj 34 0 obj<> endobj 35 0 obj<> endobj 36 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/ExtGState<>>> endobj 37 0 obj<> endobj 38 0 obj<> endobj 39 0 obj[/ICCBased 46 0 R] endobj 40 0 obj<> endobj 41 0 obj<> endobj 42 0 obj<> endobj 43 0 obj<>stream 0000004889 00000 n Plaintiff provides no analysis or legal authority for its position. See, e.g., Williams Decl. (Entered: 12/15/2008), CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge. (Id. Rodeo Collection, 812 F.2d at 1218. At the other end of the spectrum are generic marks, which are not protected. Sand Hill Advisors LLC: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re {{61}} MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2010. Defendant is therefore entitled to summary judgment on this basis. Last Updated January 6, 2019 at 8:27 PM EST (4.3 years ago). "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." SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company: Defendant - Appellee,: SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a California limited liability company: Case Number: at 67:24-68:3; Williams Decl. [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." (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2010) Modified on 3/2/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 0000002341 00000 n Plaintiff argues that its provision of real estate investment advice overlaps with Defendant's business. at 24:1.). Public Records Policy. STIPULATION AND ORDER re Pretrial Schedule. ), In 2000, Plaintiff changed its state of incorporation from California to Delaware, for reasons which were related to the acquisition of Plaintiff by Boston Private Financial Holdings ("Boston Private"). Plaintiff responds that in order to challenge its showing of a "substantially continuous" use of the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark, Defendant is required to show that it used the mark in advertising or in a manner that describes its services. 61, 64, 84, 85 Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. 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. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). See Grupo Gigante SA De CV v. Dallo & Co., Inc., 391 F.3d 1088, 1102 (9th Cir.2004) ("Descriptive or suggestive marks are relatively weak."). 33 15 Com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1205 n. 3 (9th Cir.2000). 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. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2010) Modified on 2/18/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Opp'n at 16.). Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC, SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a California limited liability company. Filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 0 at 68:25-69:25; 79:1-12.) [2] "[T]he only difference between a trademark and a service mark is that a trademark identifies goods while a service mark identifies services. 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. (Opp'n at 14.) Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System. Mark H. Epstein in Department R Santa Monica Courthouse, DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by: Clerk. 91, Filing The Court concludes that the services are unrelated, and this factor weighs in favor of the Defendant. 0000000913 00000 n (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Declaration of James P. Martin, # 2 Appendix Proposed Order)(Martin, James) (Filed on 12/2/2009) Modified on 12/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). But there's still some wrinkles that need to be ironed out so it can work with its cousin from The Clearing House. 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. On November 19, 2009, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In re Sand Hill Exchange, et al. 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 3.) (Entered: 12/28/2009), *** FILED IN ERROR. Such services include investment planning, retirement and estate planning and philanthropic strategies. Id. (McCaffrey Depo. Id. 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. 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 addition, the widespread use of "Sand Hill" by other businesses further weakens the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark. 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. (Davidson Reply Decl. Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Defendant argues that "Sand Hill Advisors" is a "primarily geographical descriptive" mark lacking any secondary meaning, and hence, is not subject to protection. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1144 (9th Cir.2002). 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. ***Civil Case Terminated. (Dhillon, Jas) (Filed on 1/29/2009) Modified on 1/30/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). The Court conducted an hour-long hearing on the motion on January 12, 2010. 85. 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. *1109 Rachel R. Davidson of K & L Gates, LLP for Defendant, Sand Hill Advisors. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2010). at 24:1-12 ("at the time we were located on Sand Hill Road. 42. "The `true test of secondary meaning' is the effectiveness of the advertising effort." At Sand Hill, we have long-standing experience with RSUs, deferred compensation, and specialized tax 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. The Ninth Circuit construes the "exceptional cases" requirement narrowly. Having so decided, the Court turns to the issue of whether the mark has acquired secondary meaning. 61, 64, 84, 85 Defendant. WebMike and his team have represented some of the worlds most recognized brands and companies in high-stakes litigation in numerous federal courts across the country including Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Utah, and Florida. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added). (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) Modified on 6/2/2010. "However, such a broad inference is not sufficient to demonstrate that a genuine issue exists concerning likelihood of confusion as to the source of the products involved in the present suit." 3-4) Modified on 12/29/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). In that case, plaintiff Rodeo Collection, Inc., held several registered services marks for the mark "Rodeo Collection," which it used in connection with providing shopping center services. However, the likelihood of confusion is obviated where, as here, the services are unrelated and the parties operate in distinct markets with no overlap in customers. 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. 's Mot. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's likelihood of confusion claim was "frivolous." Neither party discusses the threshold question of whether section 2(f) is germane in an infringement case where the mark is unregistered. If the answer is yes, then the geographic term is probably used in a descriptive sense, and secondary meaning is required for protection.").[3]. %%EOF "This acquired distinctiveness is generally called `secondary meaning.'" (Id. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the matter under submission. However, neither of cases cited by Plaintiff supports that proposition. The Articles of Registration identify Defendant's "[t]ype of business" as follows: "To engage in any lawful business for which limited liability companies may be organized in California including real estate activities, finance and advisory services." 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. 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. 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[.]" Signed by the Executive Committee on December 16, 2008. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. Struck (Defendant); As to: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); Shima Capitol LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Cross-Defendant) et al. DocketAnswer; Filed by: Adam B. The greater the similarity between the two marks at issue, the greater the likelihood of confusion. for Summ. Plaintiff also has made no showing that Plaintiff and Defendant attend the same networking events or that their "word-of-mouth" referrals involve the same demographic. See Arrow Fastener Co., Inc. v. Stanley Works, 59 F.3d 384, 393 (2d Cir. Defendant filed a reply memorandum, and the matter is now fully briefed. See 2 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, 14:7 (4th ed. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2010) Modified on 6/2/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC v. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC. To update this case yourself, sign into PACER (paid PACER subscription required). (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. 3 and Ex. Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/15/2008) Modified on 12/16/2008 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2009) (Entered: 05/20/2009), Letter from Mediator, James Gilliland, dated 3/5/2009. Equally unpersuasive is Defendant's contention that Plaintiff had no basis upon which to rely on section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. (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. As for the issue of whether Plaintiff could establish the requisite five years of continuous and exclusive use, the Court finds that Defendant raised a colorable argument in support of such a claim. (Martin, James) (Filed on 12/11/2009) Modified on 12/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Id. Clamp Mfg. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/22/2010. AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979). ), 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. 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. On November 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in this Court, alleging a single claim for service mark infringement under the Lanham Act. DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. 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 This Order terminates all pending matters in the Docket. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2009) (Entered: 02/25/2009), ORDER RE DISCOVERY PROCEDURES - Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, on 2/24/09. HWv6}WGj}I-Y]Ih RdJRx>#wHY 8}9|n{oXxlW0A(x{3|ZUzjlWgQ?mf7Es2P2AB& nwdse%7YPI*eoFH1GI!| (Opp'n at 13.) See Order of Reference, Dkt. The messaging organization is providing a sandbox for developers to enable cross-border transactions for central bank digital currencies, an elusive goal as most central banks focus on domestic use. 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. 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.

Flashpoint Victory Channel Schedule, Prequalify For Goodyear Credit Card, Articles S