Sream Inc v. Shamrock Smoke Shop Inc et al

Filing 40

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, in favor of Sream Inc against Medici Investment Inc Related to: Stipulation for Judgment 39 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,AND DECREED THAT: 1. That judgment be ent ered in favor of Sream against Empire on all claims. 2. For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Empire as to future disputes with respect to the Action or Settlement Agreement between Empire on the one hand and Sream on the other hand, and only for such purposes, Empire, and those on Empire's behalf, including their owners, shareholders,principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and partners, arepermanently enjoined from using the RooR Marks (including, without limitation the term"RooR") and confusingly similar terms (collectively, the "Injunction"). (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lw)

1
2
3

E-FILED 8/6/14

4

JS-6

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Case No. 8:13-cv-01868-PSG-AGR

SREAM, INC,

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FINAL
JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION

v.
MEDICI INVESTMENT, INC. d/b/a
EMPIRE TOBACCO; HASSAN NURU
d/b/a SHAMROCK SMOKE SHOP; and
DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE,
Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4

FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
This Court, having made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law
pursuant to the parties’ stipulation:
A.

Plaintiff Sream, Inc. (“Sream” or “Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant

5

Medici Investment, Inc. d/b/a “Empire Tobacco” (“Empire”), alleging that Empire violated

6

Sream’s rights under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. §

7

17200 et seq. (“Action”);

8
9
10
11

B.

The Parties entered into a settlement agreement as of July 2014 (“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:

12

1.

That judgment be entered in favor of Sream against Empire on all claims.

13

2.

For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Empire as to future disputes

14

with respect to the Action or Settlement Agreement between Empire on the one hand and

15

Sream on the other hand, and only for such purposes, Empire 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. Since at least 2011, Plaintiff Sream has been the exclusive licensee of the

20

RooR Marks in the United States. Mr. Brizle 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

c. Empire, by the actions described in the complaint, has infringed upon the

24
25

RooR Marks.
3.

Empire, and those on Empire’s behalf, including their owners, shareholders,

26

principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and partners, are

27

permanently enjoined from using the RooR Marks (including, without limitation the term

28

“RooR”) and confusingly similar terms (collectively, the “Injunction”).
2
JUDGMENT

1

4.

Empire is bound by the Injunction regardless of whether Mr. Martin Birzle

2

assigns or licenses its intellectual property rights to another for so long as such trademark

3

rights are subsisting, valid, and enforceable. The Injunction inures to the benefit of Mr.

4

Martin Birzle’s successors, assignees, and licensees.

5

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 Injunction, the Stipulation which includes the

8

Injunction, and this final judgment, including but not limited to interpretation and

9

enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

10
11

6.

The Parties waive any rights to appeal this stipulated judgment, including

without limitation the Injunction.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

8/6/14

Dated: _______________________

17
Philip S. Gutierrez
United States District Court Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

JUDGMENT