Sream Inc v. ZBI Enterprises, LLC et al
Filing
11
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT ZBI ENTERPRISES, LLC by Judge Cormac J. Carney. See Judgment for more information. Related to: Stipulation for Judgment 10 (twdb)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SREAM, INC, a California corporation,
Case No. SACV15-01688-CJC-DFM
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
v.
ZBI ENTERPRISES, LLC; GANPATI
INVESTMENTS, INC.; ANAHEIM
DREAM TOBACCO, INC.; and DOES 110
INCLUSIVE,
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT ZBI
ENTERPRISES, LLC
18
19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JUDGMENT
FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
1
2
3
4
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 ZBI
5
Enterprises, LLC (“ZBI Enterprises”), alleging that ZBI Enterprises violated Sream’s rights
6
under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. § 17200 et seq.
7
(“Action”);
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
B.
The Parties entered into a settlement agreement as of November 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:
1.
That judgment be entered in favor of Sream against ZBI Enterprises on all
claims.
2.
For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on ZBI Enterprises as to future
15
disputes between ZBI Enterprises and Sream, and only for such purposes, ZBI Enterprises
16
admits the following:
17
a. Mr. Martin Birzle is now, and has been at all times since the dates of issuance,
18
the owner of United States Trademark Registration Nos. 2,235,638; 2,307,176;
19
and 3,675,839 (the “RooR Marks”) and of all rights thereto and thereunder.
20
b. The RooR Marks are valid and enforceable.
21
c. Since at least 2011, Plaintiff Sream has been the exclusive licensee of the
22
RooR Marks in the United States. Mr. Birzle has been granted all
23
enforcement rights to Sream to sue for obtain injunctive and monetary relief
24
for past and future infringement of the RooR Marks.
d. ZBI Enterprises, by the actions described in the complaint, has infringed upon
25
the RooR Marks.
26
27
28
3.
ZBI Enterprises, and those acting on ZBI Enterprises’s behalf (including its
owners, shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent
2
JUDGMENT
1
contractors, and partners), are permanently enjoined from producing, manufacturing,
2
distributing, selling, offer for sale, advertising, promoting, licensing, or marketing (a) any
3
product bearing the RooR Marks or (b) any design, mark, or feature that is confusingly
4
similar to the RooR Marks (collectively, the “Injunction”).
5
4.
ZBI Enterprises is bound by the Injunction regardless of whether Mr. Martin
6
Birzle assigns or licenses its intellectual property rights to another for so long as such
7
trademark rights are subsisting, valid, and enforceable. The Injunction inures to the benefit
8
of Mr. Martin Birzle’s successors, assignees, and licensees.
9
5.
This Court (or if this Court is unavailable, any court within the Central District
10
of California) shall retain jurisdiction over all disputes between and among the Parties
11
arising out of the Settlement Agreement and Injunction, the Stipulation which includes the
12
Injunction, and this final judgment, including but not limited to interpretation and
13
enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
14
15
6.
The Parties waive any rights to appeal this stipulated judgment, including
without limitation the Injunction.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
Dated: November 24, 2015_____
21
Cormac J. Carney
United States District Court Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
JUDGMENT
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?