Sream Inc v. ZBI Enterprises, LLC et al
Filing
24
STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND PERMANENNT INJUNCTION by Judge Cormac J. Carney, in favor of Sream, Inc. against Ganpati Investments, Inc. B. The Parties entered into a settlement agreement as of July 5, 2016 ("Settlement Agreement") 23 , which requires entry of the stipulated judgment set forth herein; And good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: (see document for details). (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (dro)
1
2
3
JS-6
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
Case No. 8:15-cv-01688-CJC-DFM
Hon. Cormac J. Carney
SREAM, INC, a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
14
15
16
GANPATI INVESTMENTS, INC., et al.,
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT GANPATI
INVESTMENTS, INC.
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
1
FINAL JUDGMENT AND 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
Ganpati Investments, Inc. (“Ganpati”), alleging that Ganpati violated Sream’s rights under
6
15 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 July 5, 2016
(“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 Ganpati on all claims.
13
2.
For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Ganpati as to future disputes
14
between Ganpati and Sream, and only for such purposes, Ganpati 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. Ganpati, by the actions described in the complaint, has infringed upon the
23
RooR Marks.
24
25
3.
Ganpati, and those acting on Ganpati’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
ORDER
1
RooR Marks or (b) any design, mark, or feature that is confusingly similar to the RooR
2
Marks (collectively, the “Injunction”).
3
4.
Ganpati 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:
July 5, 2016
19
Hon. Cormac J. Carney
United States District Court Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
ORDER
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?