Trademark Law Briefs

Sand Hill Advisors, LLC v. San Hill Advisors, LLC 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5935 (N.D. Cal. 2010.)

Plaintiff, Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (registered in DE) offer wealth management services in the Silicon Valley area and have an office on Sand Hill Road, a road known for venture capitalists.  Defendant, Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (registered in CA) purchase real estate on behalf of the owners, Sandell and Hill.

Plaintiff filed suit for trademark infringement against Defendant when Plaintiff could not register as a foreign LLC in California.  The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Sand Hill Advisors, as used by plaintiff, was geographically descriptive. (more…)

In Jacobsen v. Katzer, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115204 (N.D. Cal. 2009).  The court granted summary judgment on a number of issues in favor of the plaintiff, including summary judgment on a cybersquatting claim.  Plaintiff created open source software to run model trains and alleged Defendant infringed plaintiff’s copyrights.  Plaintiff has a trademark for “DecoderPro” related to model trains.  Defendant registered the domain.  The court found defendant did so with the intent to profit.

In McConnell v. Idearc, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5505  (S.D. Cal. 2009), plaintiff raised copyright infringement claims against Idearc and several Verizon corporations regarding copyright infringement for graphics used in Idearc Yellowpages bearing Verizon’s trademark.  Idearc declared bankruptcy.  The Verizon companies received a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction.  Because the infringement by Idearc did not arise from the contract between the Idearc and Verizon, there was no specific jurisdiction.  Plaintiff also failed to allege sufficient facts to support general jurisdiction over the Verizon companies in California.

Adobe Systems Inc. v. Kern, 2009 US. Dist. LEXIS 123566 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

No real explanation needed here- Adobe alleged trademark infringment by a counterfeiter who did not appear and a default judgment was granted.

Beijin Tong Ren Tang v. TRT United States Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 261 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

Only a portion of this decision deals with trademark issues- defendant counter-claimed claiming unfair competition, false designation or origin and false advertising based on defendant’s trademark rights.  However, the complaint did not sufficiently allege priority of use because the only facts given were that defendant used the name as a corporate name and registered a domain name.  Because this does not constitute use without a connection to specific goods, it is not a sufficient allegation of use for a Lanham Act claim.  The court granted leave to amend.

Coach, Inc. v. Abner’s Fashion, et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121761 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

The court granted summary judgment to Coach in a case of counterfeit goods.  The defendants were unable to raise any triable issue of fact that the goods were not infringing.