Sream, Inc v. MP Tobacco, Inc.

Filing 16

STIPULATED ORDER TO: (1)ENTER CONSENT DECREE FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT MP TOBACCO, INC. (2)DISMISS DEFENDANT MP TOBACCO, INC. FROM THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Jesus G. Bernal Re Stipulation 15 : (see document image for further details). IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ad)

Download PDF
JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SREAM, INC, a California corporation, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 5:16-cv-02143-JGB-KK Plaintiff, STIPULATED ORDER TO: (1) ENTER CONSENT DECREE FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT MP TOBACCO, INC. (2) DISMISS DEFENDANT MP TOBACCO, INC. FROM THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. MP TOBACCO, INC., et al., 16 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE 1 ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 2 This Court, having made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law 3 4 pursuant to the parties’ stipulation: A. Plaintiff Sream, Inc. (“Sream” or “Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant MP 5 Tobacco, Inc. (“MP Tobacco”), alleging that MP Tobacco violated Sream’s rights under 15 6 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. § 17200 et seq. 7 (“Action”); 8 9 10 11 12 13 B. The Parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement effective as of December 21, 2016 (“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: 1. For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on MP Tobacco as to disputes 14 occurring after December 21, 2016, between MP Tobacco and Sream, and only for such 15 purposes, MP Tobacco 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. 19 b. The RooR Marks are valid and enforceable. 20 c. Since at least 2013, Plaintiff Sream has been the exclusive licensee of the 21 RooR Marks in the United States. Mr. Birzle has been granted all 22 enforcement rights to Sream to sue for obtain injunctive and monetary relief 23 for past and future infringement of the RooR Marks. 24 2. Effective December 21, 2016, MP Tobacco, and those acting on MP 25 Tobacco’s behalf (including its owners, shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, 26 employees, independent contractors, and partners), are permanently enjoined from 27 producing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, offer for sale, advertising, promoting, 28 licensing, or marketing (a) any product bearing the RooR Marks or (b) any design, mark, or 2 ORDER TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE 1 feature that is confusingly similar to the RooR Marks (collectively, the “Permanent 2 Injunction”). 3 3. MP Tobacco is bound by the Permanent Injunction regardless of whether Mr. 4 Martin Birzle assigns or licenses his intellectual property rights to another for so long as 5 such trademark rights are subsisting, valid, and enforceable. The Permanent Injunction 6 inures to the benefit of Mr. Martin Birzle successors, assignees, and licensees. 7 4. 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 Permanent Injunction, and interpretation of 10 their respective terms. 11 5. The Parties waive any rights to appeal this Permanent Injunction. 12 6. After entry of the Permanent Injunction, Defendant MP Tobacco shall be 13 dismissed from the Action, without prejudice, with each party to bear their own attorneys’ 14 fees and costs. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 19 Dated: December 20, 2016 20 Hon. Jesus G. Bernal Jesus United United States District Court Judge e 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?