Sream Inc v. T and H Investment Group Inc et al

Filing 20

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT by AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST APYG INC DBA THE ART OF VENICE Judge Jesus G. Bernal, in favor of Sream Inc Related to: Stipulation for Judgment 18 . (See document for specifics) (mrgo)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

EASTERN DIVISION

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

14
15

Case No. 5:14-cv-00022-JGB-SP

SREAM, INC,

v.

16
17
18
19

T AND H INVESTMENT GROUP, INC
d/b/a “THE HOOK UP PIPE”; JOSE
RAMIREZ d/b/a “FAMOUS TOBACCO
SHOP”; APYG, INC. d/b/a “THE ART OF
VENICE”, and DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE,

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AGAINST APYG, INC. d/b/a “THE
ART OF VENICE”

20
21

Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4

FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
This Court, having made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law
pursuant to the parties’ stipulation:
A.

Plaintiff Sream, Inc. (“Sream” or “Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant

5

APYG, Inc. d/b/a “The Art of Venice” (“APYG”), alleging that APYG violated Sream’s

6

rights under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. § 17200

7

et seq. (“Action”);

8
9
10
11

B.

The Parties entered into a settlement agreement as of March 6, 2014

(“Settlement Agreement”), which requires entry of the stipulated judgment set forth herein;
And good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED THAT:

12

1.

That judgment be entered in favor of Sream against APYG on all claims.

13

2.

For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on APYG as to future disputes

14

with respect to the Action or Settlement Agreement between APYG on the one hand and

15

Sream on the other hand, and only for such purposes, APYG admits the following:

16

a. Mr. Martin Birzle is now, and has been at all times since the dates of issuance,

17

the owner of United States Trademark Registration Nos. 2,235,638; 2,307,176;

18

and 3,675,839 (the “RooR Marks”) and of all rights thereto and thereunder.
b. Since at least 2011, Plaintiff Sream has been the exclusive licensee of the

19
20

RooR Marks in the United States. Mr. Brizle has been granted all

21

enforcement rights to Sream to sue for obtain injunctive and monetary relief

22

for past and future infringement of the RooR Marks.
c. APYG, by the actions described in the complaint, has infringed upon the

23

RooR Marks.

24
25

3.

APYG, and those on APYG’s behalf, including their owners, shareholders,

26

principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and partners, are

27

permanently enjoined from using the term “Sream” and confusingly similar terms

28

(collectively, the “Injunction”).
2
JUDGMENT

1

4.

APYG is bound by the Injunction regardless of whether Mr. Martin Birzle

2

assigns or licenses its intellectual property rights to another for so long as such trademark

3

rights are subsisting, valid, and enforceable. The Injunction inures to the benefit of Mr.

4

Martin Birzle’s successors, assignees, and licensees.

5

5.

This Court (or if this Court is unavailable, any court within the Central District

6

of California) shall retain jurisdiction over all disputes between and among the Parties

7

arising out of the Settlement Agreement and Injunction, the Stipulation which includes the

8

Injunction, and this final judgment, including but not limited to interpretation and

9

enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

10
11

6.

The Parties waive any rights to appeal this stipulated judgment, including

without limitation the Injunction.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: March 25, 2014

17
Hon. Jesus G. Bernal
United States District Court Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

JUDGMENT