Sream, Inc. v. Kans, Inc. et al

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO: (1)ENTER CONSENT DECREE FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT KANS, NC. (2)DISMISS DEFENDANT KANS, INC. FROM THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Upon entry of this Order, Defendant Kans-Inc shall be dismissed from the Action, without prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorney's fees and costs. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (ah)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 Case No. ED CV16-00521 JAK (KKx) SREAM, INC, a California corporation, 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO: (1) ENTER CONSENT DECREE FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT KANS, INC. (2) DISMISS DEFENDANT KANS, INC. FROM THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 11 12 13 v. KANS, INC.; RAJWINDER KAUR; PANKAJ R. LAVINGIA; and DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, 14 15 Defendants. 16 JS-6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 STIPULATION TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 1 2 The parties have stipulated to the following: 3 A. Plaintiff Sream, Inc. (“Sream” or “Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant 4 Kans, Inc. (“Kans-Inc”), alleging that Kans-Inc violated Sream’s rights under 15 U.S.C. 5 §§ 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. § 17200 et seq. (“Action”); 6 B. The Parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement effective as of 7 April 1, 2016 (“Settlement Agreement”), which requires entry of the stipulated judgment 8 set forth herein; 9 10 11 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: 1. For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Kans-Inc as to disputes 12 occurring after April 1, 2016, between Kans-Inc and Sream, and only for such purposes, 13 Kans-Inc 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 2013, 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. 22 2. Effective April 1, 2016, Kans-Inc, and those acting on its behalf (including its 23 owners, shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent 24 contractors, and partners), are permanently enjoined from producing, manufacturing, 25 distributing, selling, offer for sale, advertising, promoting, licensing, or marketing (a) any 26 product bearing the RooR Marks or (b) any design, mark, or feature that is confusingly 27 similar to the RooR Marks (the “Permanent Injunction”). 28 2 ORDER TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE 1 3. Kans-Inc is bound by the Permanent Injunction regardless of whether Mr. 2 Martin Birzle assigns or licenses his intellectual property rights to another for so long as 3 such trademark rights are subsisting, valid, and enforceable. The Permanent Injunction 4 inures to the benefit of Mr. Martin Birzle successors, assignees, and licensees. 5 4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve disputes between and/or among 6 the Parties arising out of the Settlement Agreement and Permanent Injunction, including as 7 to the interpretation of their respective terms. 8 5. The Parties waive any rights to appeal this Permanent Injunction. 9 6. Upon entry of this Order, Defendant Kans-Inc shall be dismissed from the 10 Action, without prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 Dated: May 3, 2016 16 John A. Kronstadt United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ORDER TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE

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?