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)
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?