Sream, Inc. v. Clarisa Lara et al

Filing 11

STIPULATED ORDER TO: (1)ENTER CONSENT DECREE FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT CLARISA LARA (2)DISMISS DEFENDANT CLARISA LARA FROM THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: Upon Stipulation 10 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED , AND DECREED that effective 1/9/2017, Defendant Clarisa Lara, and those acting on Lara's behalf (including its owners, shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and partners), are permanently enjo ined re any product bearing the RooR Marks or any design, mark, or feature that is confusingly similar to the RooR Marks, etc. The Parties waive any rights to appeal this Permanent Injunction. After entry of the Permanent Injunction, Defendant Lara shall be dismissed from the Action, without prejudice, with each party to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs. See document for further details. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (gk)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

Case No. 5:16-cv-2544-AB-SP

SREAM, INC, a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER
TO:
(1) ENTER CONSENT DECREE
FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AGAINST
DEFENDANT CLARISA LARA
(2) DISMISS DEFENDANT
CLARISA LARA FROM THE
ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

v.

14
15

CLARISA LARA, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

[PROPOSED] 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

Clarisa Lara (“Lara”), alleging that Lara violated Sream’s rights under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114,

6

1116, 1125(a), (c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. § 17200 et seq. (“Action”);

7

B.

The Parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement effective as of

8

January 9, 2017 (“Settlement Agreement”), which requires entry of the stipulated judgment

9

set forth herein;

10
11
12

And good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED THAT:
1.

For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Lara as to disputes occurring

13

after January 9, 2017, between Lara and Sream, and only for such purposes, Lara admits

14

the following:

15

a. Mr. Martin Birzle is now, and has been at all times since the dates of issuance,

16

the owner of United States Trademark Registration Nos. 2,235,638; 2,307,176;

17

and 3,675,839 (the “RooR Marks”) and of all rights thereto and thereunder.

18

b. The RooR Marks are valid and enforceable.

19

c. Since at least 2013, Plaintiff Sream has been the exclusive licensee of the

20

RooR Marks in the United States. Mr. Birzle has been granted all

21

enforcement rights to Sream to sue for obtain injunctive and monetary relief

22

for past and future infringement of the RooR Marks.

23

2.

Effective January 9, 2017, Lara, and those acting on Lara’s behalf (including

24

its owners, shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent

25

contractors, and partners), are permanently enjoined from producing, manufacturing,

26

distributing, selling, offer for sale, advertising, promoting, licensing, or marketing (a) any

27

product bearing the RooR Marks or (b) any design, mark, or feature that is confusingly

28

similar to the RooR Marks (collectively, the “Permanent Injunction”).
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE

3.

1

Lara is bound by the Permanent Injunction regardless of whether Mr. Martin

2

Birzle assigns or licenses his intellectual property rights to another for so long as such

3

trademark rights are subsisting, valid, and enforceable. The Permanent Injunction inures to

4

the benefit of Mr. Martin Birzle successors, assignees, and licensees.
4.

5

This Court (or if this Court is unavailable, any court within the Central District

6

of California) shall retain jurisdiction over all disputes between and among the Parties

7

arising out of the Settlement Agreement and Permanent Injunction, and interpretation of

8

their respective terms.

9

5.

The Parties waive any rights to appeal this Permanent Injunction.

10

6.

After entry of the Permanent Injunction, Defendant Lara shall be dismissed

11

from the Action, without prejudice, with each party to bear their own attorneys’ fees and

12

costs.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: _January 25, 2017

18

Hon. Andre Birotté Jr.
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE