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)

Download PDF
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?