Sream, Inc. v. George Saad Ibrahim et al

Filing 59

JUDGMENT by Judge James V. Selna Re: Stipulated Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction Against Defendant George Saad Ibrahim 58 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: That judgment be entered in favor of Sream against Ibrahim on all claims. See Order for details. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jtil)

1
2
3
4

JS-6

5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SREAM, INC, a California corporation,

Case No. SACV15−483 JVS (AGRx)

12
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18

v.
GEORGE SAAD IBRAHIM; UMIYAJI,
INC.; EIAD ABDULHAI; and DOES 1-10
INCLUSIVE,

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT GEORGE
SAAD IBRAHIM

Defendants.

19
20
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

George Saad Ibrahim (“Ibrahim”), alleging that Ibrahim 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

B.

The Parties entered into a settlement agreement as of December 2015

(“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 Ibrahim on all claims.

13

2.

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

14

between Ibrahim and Sream, and only for such purposes, Ibrahim admits 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.
d. Ibrahim, by the actions described in the complaint, has infringed upon the

23

RooR Marks.

24
25

3.

Ibrahim, and those acting on Ibrahim’s behalf (including its owners,

26

shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and

27

partners), are permanently enjoined from producing, manufacturing, distributing, selling,

28

offer for sale, advertising, promoting, licensing, or marketing (a) any product bearing the
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.

Ibrahim 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 05, 2016

19

Hon. James v. Selna
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

JUDGMENT