What County is Redlands, California In?

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

There seems to be some confusion as to which of California’s 58 counties, Redlands, California is located in.  The short answer: San Bernardino County.  The long answer is more interesting. I think the confusion comes from people from Los Angeles, as you can see in the media, they sometimes publish “Redlands, Riverside County.”  Here is an example from Fox LA (Channel 11): Earthquake Rattles Redlands Area of Riverside County.

I have lived near or in Redlands, California almost my entire life.  I have family members and friends born in Redlands.  Since 2006, I have been practicing law in Redlands.  And currently, my law firm is located at 300 E. State St. #517 Redlands, California 92373

Has Redlands always been in San Bernardino County?  Yes, and no, and almost no.   You can see from this map in the Bancroft Library at my alma mater, the University of California,  Berkeley,  from the 1840s, Redlands was part of Rancho San Bernardino.  Upon statehood, the area comprising Redlands and San Bernardino and Riverside and Moreno Valley was a part of a super-sized Los Angeles County.  That super-sized Los Angeles County also included Orange County.  On  April 23, 1853, the County of San Bernardino was formed from Los Angeles, San Diego and Mariposa County.  The City of Redlands, for which I was Assistant City Attorney for almost four and one half years, was incorporated in 1888.  The County of Riverside split from San Bernardino County and San Diego County in 1893.  Today, the San Bernardino / Riverside County line is the southern border of the City of Redlands.

Because this is a legal blog, I have bolded the portion  of the Government Code which describes the boundaries of San Bernardino County (California Government Code section 23136):

23136. The boundaries of San Bernardino County are as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of Sec. 1, T. 25 S., R. 40 E., M. D. B. & M.; thence east along the township line between T. 24 and 25 S. of the Mount Diablo base line, being the sixth standard south, Mount Diablo Base, and continuing east by said standard line and extension thereof, to the western boundary of T. 19 N., R. 12 E., San Bernardino Base and Meridian; thence north along said western boundary to the northern line of said township; thence east along the northern line of said township to the eastern boundary of the State of California, being the oblique boundary line between the states of California and Nevada, as surveyed and monumented by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1899 and approved by Act of the California Legislature on March 1, 1901, and by the state of Nevada on February 27, 1903; thence southeasterly along said interstate boundary to its intersection with the centerline of the channel of the Colorado River as constructed by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, said point being common to the boundaries of Arizona, California, and Nevada, where the 35th degree of north latitude intersects the centerline of said channel, the above mentioned centerline being a portion of the interstate boundary between the States of Arizona and California as described in “Interstate Compact Defining the Boundary Between the States of Arizona and California”, a certified copy of which is recorded and filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County; thence downstream along said centerline to the southerly end of construction; thence, continuing downstream, along said interstate boundary to its intersection with the east and west center line of T. 1 S., R. 24 E., S. B. B. & M., or the prolongation thereof; thence westerly along the northern boundary of Riverside County to the corner common to Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties; thence northwesterly along the boundary line established by joint survey in December, 1876, and January, 1877, as the line between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties to the corner common to San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Orange Counties; thence northerly along the eastern boundary of Los Angeles County to the corner common to Los Angeles, Kern and San Bernardino Counties; situated at the northeast corner of T. 8 N., R. 8 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence east on the township line between T. 8 and 9 N. of San Bernardino base line to the section line between Secs. 32 and 33, T. 9 N., R. 7 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence north following section lines to the eighth standard parallel south of Mount Diablo base line; thence east along said eighth standard parallel to the southwest corner of T. 32 S., R. 41 E., M. D. B. & M.; thence north along the township line to the seventh standard parallel south of Mount Diablo base line; thence along said standard parallel to the southwest corner of Sec. 36, T. 28 S., R. 40 E., M. D. B. & M.; thence north along section lines to the southwest corner of Section 24, T. 26 S., R. 40 E; thence east along the south line of said Section 24 to an intersection with the east line of said Section 24; thence north along said east line, and continuing north along the east line of Section 13, same township and range, to an intersection with the north line of said Section 13; thence west along said north line and continuing west along the south line of Section 11, same township and range, to an intersection with the west line of said Section 11; thence north along said west line and continuing north along the west line of Section 2, same township and range, to an intersection with the north line of said Section 2; thence east along said north line to an intersection with the east line of said Section 2; thence north along section lines to the northwest corner of Sec. 1, T. 25 S., R. 40 E., M. D. B. & M., said point being the place of beginning. That portion of the San Bernardino County boundary line which coincides with the Arizona-California Interstate Boundary is shown on a series of Planimetric Maps appearing in Exhibit “A” of above mentioned Interstate Compact. Geographic Positions and Plane Coordinates of all boundary points mentioned in above description are listed in Exhibit “A” of said Interstate Compact That means you have to look at the legal description of Riverside County to find if it defines the county line between Riverside and San Bernardino. I’ve bolded the relevant portion. 23133. The boundaries of Riverside County are as follows: Beginning at the corner common to Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties, being located at the point of intersection of the easterly boundary of the El Canon de Santa Ana Rancho with course number seven of the boundary line, established by joint survey in December 1876, and January 1877, as the line between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties; thence southeasterly along said line of survey to the most northerly point of that survey on file in Book 87 of Records of Survey, at Pages 60 through 61, in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County; thence south 68 49´57″ west a distance of 35.37 feet; thence south 48 16´56″ west a distance of 150.70 feet; thence south 65 40´06″ west a distance of 75.15 feet; thence north 84 32´29″ west a distance of 155.61 feet to the beginning of a nontangent curve, concave to the northwest, with a radial bearing north 29 06´47″ west and a radius of 1,550.00 feet; thence along said curve through an angle of 15 01´17″ a distance of 406.35 feet to the easterly line of the Rancho Lomas de Santiago; thence south 02 53´27″ east, along said easterly line, a distance of 3,273.18 feet to the south line of Sec. 36 T. 3 S., 8 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence south 89 07´27″ east, along said south line, a distance of 818.46 feet; thence south 89 05´38″ east, continuing along said south line, a distance of 2,484.00 feet to the southerly most point on said survey on file in Book 87 of Records of Survey, at Pages 60 through 61, in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County, said point also being on said line of survey between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties; thence continuing southeasterly on said line of survey to the point of beginning of said joint survey, it being upon the northern boundary of San Diego County, as it was then established; thence southwesterly to a point on the eastern line of Rancho Mission Viejo or La Paz two miles north of the south boundary of T. 7 S., S. B. B. & M.; thence south along said boundary to the point of intersection of said line and the northwest corner of Lot 1 of Sec. 33, T. 7 S., R. 6 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence south 89 16´14″ east along the north line of said Lot 1 and the north section line of said Sec. 33 a distance of 2,086.39 feet to the northeast section corner thereof; thence south 00 27´14″ west, along the east section line of said Sec. 33, a distance of 2,647.46 feet to the east quarter corner of said Sec. 33; then south 01 00´50″ west, continuing along said east section line, a distance of 1,320.33 feet to the southeast corner of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; thence north 89 25´11″ west, along the south line of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter and the south line of Lot 3 of said Sec. 33, a distance of 2,042.68 feet to the eastern boundary line of Rancho Mission Viejo or La Paz; thence 00 00´35″ east, along said boundary, a distance of 1,324.46 feet to the point of intersection with said line with the township line between T. 7 S. and T. 8 S., S. B. B. & M.; thence easterly along said township line to its intersection with the western boundary of Santa Rosa Rancho; thence southerly along the boundary of said rancho to where said boundary of said rancho intersects the range line between T. 8 S., T. 3 W., and T. 8 S., T. 4 W.; thence south on said range line to the point of intersection of the said line with the second standard parallel south; thence east along said parallel to its intersection with the interstate boundary between the States of Arizona and California on the centerline of the Colorado River, said interstate boundary and centerline being described in “Interstate Compact Defining the Boundary Between the States of Arizona and California”, a certified copy of which is recorded and filed in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County; thence northerly along said interstate boundary to its point of intersection with the east and west centerline of T. 1 S., R. 24 E., S. B. B. & M., or the prolongation thereof; thence westerly along the section lines to the southeast corner of Sec. 17, T. 1 S., R. 16 E., S. B. B. & M.; thence south to the southeast corner of Sec. 32, same township and range, said point being on the township line between T. 1 and 2 S., S. B. B. & M.; thence west on said township line to the northeast corner of T. 2 S., R. 1 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence south to the southeast corner of Sec. 12, T. 2 S., R. 1 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence west to the southwest corner of Sec. 8, T. 2 S., R. 3 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence north to the northwest corner of said Sec. 8; thence west to the quarter corner of the south line of Sec. 2, T. 2 S., R. 5 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence north to the quarter corner on the north line of said Sec. 2; thence west to the southwest corner of Sec. 31, T. 1 S., R. 6 W.; thence south along the section lines to the northern boundary of the Jurupa Rancho; thence southwesterly along said north boundary to the northwest corner of said Rancho; thence south along the west boundary of said Jurupa Rancho to the quarter corner on the east line of Sec. 9, T. 3 S., R. 7 W., thence west in a direct line to the center of Sec. 7, same township and range; thence south in a direct line, to the quarter corner on the south line of Sec. 19, T. 3 S., R. 7 W., thence west to the east boundary of the El Canon de Santa Ana Rancho; thence southerly along the easterly boundary of said Rancho to the place of beginning. That portion of the Riverside County boundary line which coincides with the Arizona-California Interstate Boundary is shown on a series of Planimetric Maps appearing in Exhibit “A” of the above-mentioned Interstate Compact.

If you plotted that on the survey of California along the San Bernardino Base & Meridian, you would find that the City of Redlands is in San Bernardino County, California.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

 

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

Trade Dress Confusion: In-N-Out versus Five Guys

I am a native of arguably the birthplace of fast food.  McDonalds was born on North E Street in San Bernardino, and Glenn Bell’s pre-Taco Bell restaurants started in San Bernardino.  I am very familiar with local Inland Empire chain (based in San Bernardino)  Baker’s Drive-Thru, as my office in the Redlands Executive Suites shares a parking lot.  Del Taco started in Yermo, and Carls Jr., Wienershnitzel and Jack in the Box all started in Southern California.  And of course, In-N-Out in Baldwin Park.

In today’s Los Angeles Times,on Page B-1 in an article by Sharon Bernstein is a discussion of  East Coast burger chain Five Guys moving directly into In-N-Out’s motherland.  I’ve long enjoyed  In-N-Out.  I’ll never forget visiting the store on Second Street in San Bernardino (which will soon move to Fifth Street in San Bernardino) after seeing the Cure at the Rose Bowl.  When I was an undergraduate at the University of California, Berkeley, we at least on one occasion drove to the only In-N-Out then in Northern California in Gilroy.  By the time I graduated law school at Santa Clara University School of Law, they started to open throughout the Bay Area.  I stumbled upon the City Council Meeting in Sunnyvale on cable television approving the Conditional Use Permit for the store in Sunnyvale, a City that did not want new drive-throughs.  One opened approximately 300 feet from my front door.  Alas, I had graduated from law school and soon moved back to the Inland Empire.  In the Inland Empire, long home of existing In-N-Out Burger restaurants, municipalities like the City of Highland and the City of Rialto seek new stores to help put them on the map.  When I was Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands, one former council member sometimes publicly wished aloud for an In-N-Out in Redlands.  I can second that motion.
I first stumbled across Five Guys in Northern Virginia in 2007.  The first thing I noticed is that it appeared to be taking the “look and feel” of In-N-Out with Five Guy’s distinctive red and white color scheme, including red and white checkerboard tiles.  I didn’t eat at a Five Guys until last year in a store near Biloxi, Mississippi.   There are some key differences between the quality of  the two, particularly the expanded menu at Five Guys.

The look and feel of a restaurant can be protected as “trade dress.”  This protection derives both from the Federal Lanham Act and common law trademark.  Trademarks registered by In-N-Out (found at the United States Patent and Trademark Office searching for “In-N-Out”), include the word mark In-N-Out for a variety of goods and services classes, the arrow and rectangle  found on their sign and packaging , and the “mark [comprising] a stylized rendering of a continous band of palm trees above several continuous wavy lines which suggest ocean waves.”

In-N-Out has always vigorously defended its trademarks in court and at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  I remember a San Bernardino based chain called “Luv’m Burgers” which I was told was shut-down by In-N-Out a long time ago, though I was unable to find a trace of such a suit on the internet. In-N-Out has stopped people from using the mark “In-N-Out” in other trademark classes.   In-N-Out sued copycats, such as Nicky’s In-N-Out Gyros.  One of the key benefits of federal trademark registration is nationwide protection, even against the aforementioned Nicky’s, which was in Chicago.

In-N-Out also was able to get a temporary restraining order against Chadders, a Utah chain, for using some of In-N-Out’s federally-registered marks.  The order, which can be found , states in pertinent part:

“In-N-Out has federally registered trademarks in the names Protein® Style Burger, Animal® Style Burger, 3 x 3® Burger, 4x 4® Burger and Double Double®.2 In-N-Out claims, as its trade dress; simple red-and-white menu boards with a plain type font and red border and lettering, a red-and-white color scheme with yellow accents on the exterior and interior of its restaurant, including use on walls, tiles, and seating structures, a gray and white tile checkerboard floor in its interiors, exteriors with a “California” tile roof (featuring orangepavers), and employee uniforms with red aprons and red hats or visors. In-N-Out Burger serves food in what it alleges is a distinctive manner, which it alleges Chadders also uses.”  In-N-Out Burgers, A California Corporation v. Chadders Restaurant, et al., United States District Court for Utah, Central Division, 2:07-CV-394 TS, Memorandum Decision and Order, June 29, 2007 by U.S. District Court Judge Ted Stewart.  From the order, the Court granted the Temporary Restraining Order regarding the registered trademarks, but did not grant the Temporary Restraining Order regarding In-N-Out’s  trade dress claims.

The order focused on the following language from Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc.. 251 F.3d 1252, 1257-58 (9th Cir. 2001) : “To sustain a claim for trade dress infringement, [plaintiff] must prove: (1) that its claimed dress is nonfunctional; (2) that its claimed dress serves a source-identifying role either because it is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning; and (3) that the defendant’s product or service creates a likelihood of consumer confusion.”  I was unable to find if In-N-Out was able to succeed on the merits of the trade dress claims after the Temporary Restraining Order was denied in part.

However, there is a Youtube video which can help you make your own determination about In-N-Out’s trade dress claims against Chadders.

How about Five Guys?  If you search for “trade dress” “In-N-Out” and “Five Guys” in Google, you get others whose initial impression that Five Guy’s trade dress is an In-N-Out rip-off.   In this blog, the author states “I had time to soak in the red-and-white “trade dress” of In-N-Out, which reminded me a lot of the Johnny-come-lately look of Five Guys.”  In this comment on another site, the author says “Five Guys is no In-N-Out (ignoring the similarity in trade-dress), but their cheeseburger with the works and hot sauce ( which is more “tangy” than “hot” ) is outstanding.”

A plaintiff has to prove that the trade dress is non-functional.  In-N-Out’s red and white color scheme, including the checker scheme, with yellow accents is probably not functional.  You can have higher contrast color schemes for the function of readability.  I would argue that the color scheme does have a source identifying role.  The “likelihood of confusion” prong probably is not met, however, because even though people recognize that Five Guys is trying to be like In-N-Out, you know that a Five Guys is not an In-N-Out.   You can’t get a hot dog in In-N-Out, and hopefully, you never will be able to.  As soon as you see the peanuts in Five Guys, you know you’re not going to be able to order a Double Double Animal Style with a Neapolitan Shake and Fries Well.  The Five Guys I have seen are in strip malls, while almost all In-N-Outs have drive throughs.  Five Guys aren’t meticulously clean like an In-N-Out.  Anyone paying attention can tell the business model is different, too.  Five Guys franchises, and has expanded from its base almost as quickly as the ill-fated Krispy Kreme.  In-N-Out Burger  is still family owned, and has expanded slowly and cautiously (though you can argue the stand-alone Texas expansion may not be wise).  I think the lack of yellow in the scheme is a key difference.  Also, even though the comments above recognized the difference between the two chains despite the similarity of trade dress.  Yes, Five Guys is an imitator, but consumers can see that they are an obvious imitator.

Update 4/18/2011:

For those of you looking for the Redlands Five Guys, according to the Facts, it is opening on April 20, 2011 and is located at 10400 Alabama St. (in the Redlands Town Center).  I believe it is near Noodle 21.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

 

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

San Bernardino Sun: 215 / 210 Interchange Dangerous

The Sun has an article posted on March 20, 2011 (and found at http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_17659411?source=rss) stating that the transition from the southbound 215 to the eastbound 210 in the City of San Bernardino is dangerous, with the Sun stating that accidents have “skyrocketed.”   The 215 is currently being widened and construction can often limit lanes with k-rails.  The construction can change lanes from one day to the next.

A public entity, such as the State of California, Department of Transportation, also known as CalTrans)  may only be held liable for a dangerous condition of its property, not for simple negligence or premises liability.

A dangerous condition is “a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of injury when such property . . . is used with due care in a manner in which it is foreseeable that it will be used.”  Government Code § 830(a).  A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of property it owns or controls if the plaintiff establishes that (1) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of injury; (2) that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition; (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury incurred; and either (i) a public employee, within the scope of his or her employment, negligent or wrongly committed an act or omission that created the condition or (ii) the entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in sufficient time prior to the injury to take protective measures against the dangerous condition.  Government Code §§ 830, 835.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708