Sream, Inc. v. Mohammed Najib Mohammed et al
Filing
12
STIPULATED ORDER TO: (1)ENTER CONSENT DECREE FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT MOHAMMED NAJIB MOHAMMED (2)DISMISS DEFENDANT MOHAMMED NAJIB MOHAMMED FROM THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE filed by Judge Jesus G. Bernal against defendant Mohammed Najib Mohammed. (See document for further details.) (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (iva)
1
2
3
JS-6
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
16
17
Case No. 5:16-cv-2510-JGB-KK
Plaintiff,
STIPULATED ORDER TO:
(1) ENTER CONSENT DECREE
FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AGAINST
DEFENDANT MOHAMMED
NAJIB MOHAMMED
(2) DISMISS DEFENDANT
MOHAMMED NAJIB
MOHAMMED FROM THE
ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
v.
MOHAMMED NAJIB MOHAMMED, et
al.,
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
5
Mohammed Najib Mohammed (“Mohammed”), alleging that Mohammed violated Sream’s
6
rights under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. § 17200
7
et seq. (“Action”);
8
9
10
11
12
13
B.
The Parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement effective as of
January 11, 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:
1.
For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Mohammed as to disputes
14
occurring after January 11, 2017, between Mohammed and Sream, and only for such
15
purposes, Mohammed 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 January 11, 2017, Mohammed, and those acting on Mohammed’s
25
behalf (including its owners, shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees,
26
independent contractors, and partners), are permanently enjoined from producing,
27
manufacturing, distributing, selling, offer for sale, advertising, promoting, licensing, or
28
2
ORDER TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE
1
marketing (a) any product bearing the RooR Marks or (b) any design, mark, or feature that
2
is confusingly similar to the RooR Marks (collectively, the “Permanent Injunction”).
3
3.
Mohammed 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 Mohammed 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: January 24, 2017
20
Hon. Jesus G. Bernal
. Jesus
e
United States District Court Judge
United
t
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?