Sream, Inc. v. Sam Sarofeem et al
Filing
62
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT ALBEAR BESHARA by Judge Margaret M. Morrow, in favor of Sream, Inc. against Albear Beshara Related to: Stipulation for Judgment 60 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bm)
1
2
3
FILED: 09/25/2015
4
5
JS-6
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SREAM, INC, a California corporation,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00564-MMM-PLA
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
v.
SAM SAROFEEM; ALBEAR BESHARA;
SOHEIR G. AWADALLA; ANDREH
RUIZ, AKA ANDREA RUIZ; and DOES
1-10 INCLUSIVE,
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FINAL
JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AGAINST
DEFENDANT ALBEAR BESHARA
18
19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JUDGMENT
FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
1
2
3
4
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
Albear Beshara (“Beshara”), alleging that Beshara violated Sream’s rights under 15 U.S.C.
6
§§ 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. § 17200 et seq. (“Action”);
7
8
9
10
B.
The Parties entered into a settlement agreement as of September 2015
(“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:
11
1.
That judgment be entered in favor of Sream against Beshara on all claims.
12
2.
For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Beshara as to future disputes
13
between Beshara and Sream, and only for such purposes, Beshara admits the following:
14
a. Mr. Martin Birzle is now, and has been at all times since the dates of issuance,
15
the owner of United States Trademark Registration Nos. 2,235,638; 2,307,176;
16
and 3,675,839 (the “RooR Marks”) and of all rights thereto and thereunder.
17
b. The RooR Marks are valid and enforceable.
18
c. Since at least 2011, Plaintiff Sream has been the exclusive licensee of the
19
RooR Marks in the United States. Mr. Birzle has been granted all
20
enforcement rights to Sream to sue for obtain injunctive and monetary relief
21
for past and future infringement of the RooR Marks.
d. Beshara, by the actions described in the complaint, has infringed upon the
22
RooR Marks.
23
24
3.
Beshara, and those acting on Beshara’s behalf (including its owners,
25
shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and
26
partners), are permanently enjoined from producing, manufacturing, distributing, selling,
27
offer for sale, advertising, promoting, licensing, or marketing (a) any product bearing the
28
2
JUDGMENT
1
RooR Marks or (b) any design, mark, or feature that is confusingly similar to the RooR
2
Marks (collectively, the “Injunction”).
3
4.
Beshara is bound by the Injunction regardless of whether Mr. Martin Birzle
4
assigns or licenses its intellectual property rights to another for so long as such trademark
5
rights are subsisting, valid, and enforceable. The Injunction inures to the benefit of Mr.
6
Martin Birzle’s successors, assignees, and licensees.
7
5.
This Court (or if this Court is unavailable, any court within the Central District
8
of California) shall retain jurisdiction over all disputes between and among the Parties
9
arising out of the Settlement Agreement and Injunction, the Stipulation which includes the
10
Injunction, and this final judgment, including but not limited to interpretation and
11
enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
12
13
6.
The Parties waive any rights to appeal this stipulated judgment, including
without limitation the Injunction.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
18
09/25/2015
Dated: _______________________
19
Margaret M. Morrow
United States District Court Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
JUDGMENT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?