Sream, Inc. v. Sarah-Q, Inc. et al

Filing 13

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SARAH-Q,INC. by Judge Terry J. Hatter: The Parties entered into a settlement agreement as of January 20, 2017 (Settlement Agreement), which requires entry of the stipulated judgment . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: That judgment be entered in favor of Sream against Sarah-Q on all claims. For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Sarah-Q as to future disputesbetween Sarah-Q and Sream, and only for such p urposes, Sarah-Q admits the following: a. Mr. Martin Birzle is now, and has been at all times since the dates of issuance, the owner of United States Trademark Registration Nos. 2,235,638; 2,307,176; and 3,675,839 (the RooR Marks) and of all rights t hereto and thereunder. The RooR Marks are valid and enforceable. Sarah-Q, and those acting on Sarah-Qs behalf (including its owners, shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, andpartners), are permanent ly enjoined from producing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, offer for sale, advertising, promoting, licensing, or marketing (a) any product bearing the RooR Marks or (b) any design, mark, or feature that is confusingly similar to the RooR Marks (collectively, the Injunction). (See order for further details). (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (shb)

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

Case No. 5:16-cv-02375-TJH-KKx
Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr.

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15

SARAH-Q, INC., et al.,

16

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT SARAH-Q,
INC. [JS-6]

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JUDGMENT

1

FINAL JUDGMENT AND 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

5

Sarah-Q, Inc. (“Sarah-Q”), alleging that Sarah-Q 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 January 20, 2017

(“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 Sarah-Q on all claims.

12

2.

For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Sarah-Q as to future disputes

13

between Sarah-Q and Sream, and only for such purposes, Sarah-Q 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.
d. Sarah-Q, by the actions described in the complaint, has infringed upon the

22

RooR Marks.

23
24

3.

Sarah-Q, and those acting on Sarah-Q’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.

Sarah-Q 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

Dated: January 20, 2017

19

Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

JUDGMENT