Co-founder Jane Williams similarly confirmed the geographical significance of "Sand Hill." Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System. A, McCaffrey Depo. As noted, the "need test" measures the extent to which a mark is necessary for competitors to identify their goods and services. Id. 0000013270 00000 n 15 U.S.C. A. degree from University of California , Santa Cruz and a B. 1117(a). Applied Info. Next, Plaintiff asserts that "Sand Hill" is suggestive ostensibly because it evokes qualities "associated with the Silicon Valley entrepreneurial community much like `Broadway' evokes qualities associated with New York's commercial theatre district and `Rodeo' evokes connotations of upscale shops in Beverly Hills." Sciences Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 969-970 (9th Cir.2007). RELATED. Japan Telecom, 287 F.3d at 873, 875 (affirming summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to show secondary meaning). SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company: Defendant - Appellee,: SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a California limited liability company: Case Number: The Court found that 2(f) was inapplicable because the mark was unregistered. CIV S-02-0704 FCD DAD, 2007 WL 988054 at *2 (E.D. Forschner Group, Inc. v. Arrow Trading Co., Inc., 30 F.3d 348, 355 (2d Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). STRUCK, ET AL. at 7-10.) Defendant does not provide any services to the public and has never provided any financial, investment or any other advice to any third party. at 8-9. 0000000940 00000 n 13.) The central bank's instant payment system could bring enormous benefits to banks and their customers. 0000001817 00000 n Entrepreneur Media, 279 F.3d at 1144. Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 769, 112 S.Ct. 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. 07:04. Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. 's Mot. 5.) Ex. Docket Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. The record confirms that Plaintiff proffered evidence regarding it various marketing and promotional efforts using the SAND HILL ADVISORS name. Saundra Brown Armstrong for all further proceedings. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. 0 C.). 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). 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. Since 1999, Defendant has closed between seven to ten commercial real estate transactions. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1055. 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. (Opp'n at 22-23.) 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. A district court judge may refer a matter to a magistrate judge to conduct a hearing, including an evidentiary hearing, and to thereafter issue findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of the matter. 85. 28 U.S.C. See Applied Info. 0000012780 00000 n 41, Filing Co., Inc., 870 F.2d 512, 517 (9th Cir. 58, Filing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Plaintiff is a self-styled "wealth management" firm currently located in Menlo Park, California. Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. 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. However, neither of cases cited by Plaintiff supports that proposition. ), 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. 10 0 obj <> endobj "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."). (wdblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2008) Modified on 12/16/2008 (cjl, COURT STAFF). 2004). Not true. To that end, Plaintiff selected "Sand Hill Advisors" because it reflected the firm's location and allowed it to capitalize on the "cache" associated with that area, which is known for its concentration of venture capital firms. 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 trailer 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. (Williams Decl. %%EOF The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Davidson Decl. Factual disputes are genuine if they "properly can be resolved in favor of either party." "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." (Entered: 01/28/2009), ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 11 Motion for, CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASES: Case Management Conference set for 2/12/2009 02:45 PM. (Mot. Defendant filed a reply memorandum, and the matter is now fully briefed. 4.) YIDA GAO, ET AL. 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. And so that was our address, but we felt it was an address that we wanted to trumpet. 0000005085 00000 n Given that Plaintiff and Defendant used the same mark in the same general geographical area, Plaintiff's position that the parties' simultaneous use of the SAND HILL ADVISORS mark was likely to cause confusion was certainly arguable. Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 0000004889 00000 n (Entered: 05/21/2009), CERTIFICATION OF MEDIATION Session 5/19/2009, case not settled, no follow up contemplated, mediation complete. 78(b); N.D. Cal. A.) As such, even if section 2(f) could be applied to unregistered marks, the record demonstrates that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate the requisite five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2010) Modified on 1/27/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). "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." Years later, certain members of Plaintiff's management sought to reacquire their equity stake from Boston Private, which prompted Plaintiff to reorganize as a Delaware limited liability company. Defendant is therefore entitled to summary judgment on this basis. 636(b)(1); see Fed.R.Civ.P 72(b). 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. On appeal, the court addressed, among other things, the strength of the mark "Rodeo Collection." 2505. With regard to the need test, the court noted that given the remoteness of the association between "collection" and a shopping center, "a competing shopping *1115 center would not need to use the term `collection' in order to identify its own shopping center." 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. WebREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2010. 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." (McCaffrey Depo. (Id.) We worked in that area. Case reassigned to Hon. As a result, Plaintiff changed its state of incorporation from California to Delaware. The `need test' focuses on the extent to which a mark is actually needed by competitors to identify their goods or services." Com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1205 n. 3 (9th Cir.2000). United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division. On February 9, 2010, Defendant filed a motion for attorneys' fees, which was referred to Magistrate Judge James ("the Magistrate"). 6/17/2015: In re BTC Trading, Corp. and Ethan Burnside In the instant case, the "Sand Hill Mark" was never registered by Plaintiff, and as such, no presumption of secondary use could have arisen, even if Plaintiff now could show retrospectively that it meets the requirements of section 2(f). (Entered: 12/22/2009), Proposed Order re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Case Management Conference set for 2/10/2009 04:00 PM. "The latter three categories of marks, because their intrinsic nature, serves to identify a particular source of a product, are deemed inherently distinctive and are entitled to protection." 2753. ORDER VACATING HEARING re 61 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm't Inc., 581 F.3d 1138, 1145 (9th Cir. To update this case yourself, sign into PACER (paid PACER subscription required). (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2010) Modified on 3/2/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). "); Williams Depo. 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. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/5/09. (Miller, Katherine) (Filed on 2/19/2009) Modified on 2/20/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). The parties, through counsel, appeared for argument on the motion on January 12, 2010. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. Prior to March 25, 2000, Defendant was registered with the California Secretary of State under the *1117 "Sand Hill Advisors" mark, which it began using shortly thereafter. AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979). Brenda received a B. It is undisputed that Defendant offers no advice concerning investing in real estate to any third parties. at 970. The likelihood of consumer confusion decreases where the consumer is sophisticated and exercises a high degree of care. 39, Filing Inc. v. US Agency Intern. (Opp'n at 16-17.) (Id. The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." However, descriptive marks may acquire distinctiveness through use in commerce. "A geographically descriptive term or phrase is one that designates geographical location and would tend to be regarded by buyers as descriptive of the geographic location or origin of the goods or services." 42. "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." WebCase No. Mar. Neither party discusses the threshold question of whether section 2(f) is germane in an infringement case where the mark is unregistered. Thane Int'l, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 305 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir.2002). (Opp'n at 22.) (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). (Entered: 12/15/2008), Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. L.R. (Entered: 01/12/2010), EXHIBIT C re 48 Declaration of Rachel R. Davidson in Support, CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 50 filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. (Id. For reprint and licensing requests for this article, Swift works to bridge 'digital islands' of CBDCs, 20 bank holding companies with the largest consumer loan portfolios, Bank runs, fraud and faster payments: FedNow's impact on regulation, JPMorgan Chase, FDIC put an end to First Republic's slow bleed, Conflating issues or missing the point? 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. In view of the dearth of evidence of actual confusion, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff argues that its provision of real estate investment advice overlaps with Defendant's business. Mark H. Epstein in Department R Santa Monica Courthouse, Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by: Clerk. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, on February 26, 2009. Indeed, Mr. Conway admitted that Defendant is not a competitor of Plaintiff. 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." Having failed to show secondary meaning, Plaintiff cannot establish that it possesses a protectable mark, which is an essential element of its claim for service mark infringement. 16-20 and Exs. As such, other advisory companies are more likely to refer to "Sand Hill" and "Advisors" in describing or advertising their services. at 51:6-52:14; Williams Decl. And how much will banks have to pay? An applicant nevertheless may seek to register a descriptive mark pursuant to section 2(f), which creates a presumption of distinctiveness (or "acquired distinctiveness"), where the applicant can establish at least five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use. 0000000596 00000 n 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. The court has the discretion under Lanham Act to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in "exceptional cases." Defendant argues that Plaintiff presented no evidence to support its claim of secondary meaning. 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. 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 Ex. Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir.2009). NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel, filed by Sand Hill Advisors, LLC. GoTo. See McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 584 F.3d 1129, 1138 (9th Cir.2009) ("Summary judgment requires facts, not simply unsupported denials or rank speculation"). 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. Id. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 36 ) (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009), Declaration of Rachel R. Davidson in Support of 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed bySand Hill Advisors LLC. Id. Id. (Related document(s) 48 ) (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/28/2009) Modified on 12/30/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). 0000000860 00000 n 0000002447 00000 n ORDER REFERRING MOTION re 61 Motion for Attorney Fees. 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). STRUCK'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, 7/27/2021: Reply - REPLY REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ADAM B. STRUCKS MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, Hearing08/29/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department R at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Status Conference, DocketUpdated -- Denis Shmidt (Attorney): Organization Name changed from Orsus Gate LLP to HARDER STONEROCK LLP, DocketNotice 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, DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by: Amnon Siegel (Attorney), DocketAddress for Amnon Siegel (Attorney) updated. All that Mr. Conway could state was that he raised the issue with them; beyond that vague recollection, however, Mr. Conway unequivocally stated that he could not remember what he discussed with them specifically. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. 88, Filing Pl. In addition, Defendant ignores the evidence proffered by Plaintiff, and cited by the Magistrate, that Plaintiff desired to protect the goodwill that it believed it had established by operating under the Sand Hill Advisors name. 's Mot. Thus, despite Defendant's protestations the contrary, Mr. Conway's deposition testimony does not show that Plaintiff "knew" that it lacked a protectable mark. Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 352; Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Netscape Commc'ns, 354 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir.2004) ("actual confusion among significant numbers of consumers provides strong support for the likelihood of confusion[.]"). These marketing and promotion efforts have included sending out newsletters, attending conferences, providing commentary on radio and television programs, preparing white papers (i.e., reports), underwriting community and charity events, participating in non-profit boards, maintaining an active website and attending professional events. (Davidson Decl. Plaintiff's ancillary contention that "Sand Hill Advisors" satisfies the "need test" fares no better. Phone Number (650) 8549150. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/12/2010) Modified on 1/13/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). However, the cited deposition excerpts of Gary Conway, one of Plaintiff's founders, do not support Defendant's argument. Last Updated January 6, 2019 at 8:27 PM EST (4.3 years ago). 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." at 132:12-133:8; Conway Depo. VS ADAM B. (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. Aside from being devoid of evidentiary support, Plaintiff's argument misses the point. Motions due by 1/12/2010. Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 354. The deal is expected to close in July or August, said Walter M. Pressey, Boston Private Financial's chief financial officer. at 1219. 's Mot. See Japan Telecom, Inc. v. Japan Telecom Am. 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." Entrepreneur Media, 279 F.3d at 1148. 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[.]" Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. DocketStatus Conference re: Arbitration scheduled for 08/29/2023 at 08:30 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department R, DocketPursuant 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, DocketMinute Order (Status Conference re: Arbitration), DocketUpdated -- Declaration Of Frank D. Rorie JR. We lived in that area. (Davidson's Reply Decl. 0000005571 00000 n Ex. (Davidson, Rachel) (Filed on 12/22/2009) Modified on 12/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). THE KUHN FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. 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."). 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." In October 1989, Conway, Luongo, Williams, Inc., changed its name to Conway, Williams & Foster, Inc. (Id. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. Why is this public record being published online? All but one of the Sleekcraft factors strongly favor Defendant, and none favor Plaintiff. 1989). Def. DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. 04:53. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC, Filing (Entered: 02/24/2009), ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for ALL Discovery purposes. WebGet free access to the complete judgment in SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC v. SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC on CaseMine. (Entered: 12/11/2009), Memorandum in Opposition re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital trailer 56(e); Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 0000002317 00000 n 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. Yet, there is no evidence to support Plaintiff's assertion that "Sand Hill" evokes an "entrepreneurial" spirit. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2010) Modified on 1/27/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). % Ex. WebIAPD provides information on Investment Adviser firms regulated by the SEC and/or state securities regulators. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria In addition, Plaintiff ignores that "[t] he question is whether the phrase can be construed to mean that the product is made in a certain locale."