SREAM, INC. v. 4U SURPLUS, INC.

Case No. 5:16-cv-00881-RGK-DTB.

SREAM, INC, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. 4U SURPLUS, INC., et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 1051
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1051 Trademark Infringement
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Sream, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Imran F. Vakil , Nexio PC.

Sream, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Angelo Mishriki , Nexio PC.


[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER TO:

(1) ENTER CONSENT DECREE FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT 4U SURPLUS, INC.

(2) DISMISS DEFENDANT 4U SURPLUS, INC. FROM THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

R. GARY KLAUSNER, District Judge.

ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

This Court, having made the following findings offact and conclusions oflaw pursuant to the parties' stipulation:

A. Plaintiff Sream, Inc.("Sream" or "Plaintiff') filed suit against Defendant 4U Surplus, Inc.("4U-Inc"), alleging that 4U-Inc violated Sream's rights under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1125(a),(c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. § 17200 et seq. ("Action");

B. The Parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement effective as of July 28, 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:

1. For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on 4U-Inc as to disputes occurring after July 28, 2016, between 4U-Inc and Sream, and only for such purposes,4U-Inc admits the following:

a. Mr. Martin Birzle is now, and has been at all times since the dates of issuance, the owner of United States Trademark Registration Nos. 2,235,638; 2,307,176; and 3,675,839(the "RooR Marks")and of all rights thereto and thereunder. b. The RooR Marks are valid and enforceable. c. Since at least —, Plaintiff Sream has been the exclusive licensee of the RooR Marks in the United. States. Mr. Birzle has been granted all enforcement rights to Sream to sue for obtain injunctive and monetary relief for past and future infringement of the RooR Marks.

2. Effective July 28, 2016, 4U-Inc, and those acting on 4U-Ines behalf (including its owners, shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and partners), are permanently enjoined from producing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, offer for sale, advertising, promoting, licensing, or marketing(a)any product bearing the RooR Marks or(b)any design, mark, or feature that is confusingly similar to the RooR Marks (collectively, the "Permanent Injunction").

3. 4U-Inc is bound by the Permanent Injunction regardless of whether Mr. Martin Birzle assigns or licenses his intellectual property rights to another for so long as such trademark rights are subsisting, valid, and enforceable. The Permanent Injunction inures to the benefit of Mr. Martin Birzle successors, assignees, and licensees.

4. This Court(or if this Court is unavailable, any court within the Central District of California) shall retain jurisdiction over all disputes between and among the Parties arising out of the Settlement Agreement and Permanent Injunction, and interpretation of their respective terms.

5. The Parties waive any rights to appeal this Permanent Injunction.

6. After entry of the Permanent Injunction, Defendant 4U-Inc shall be dismissed from the Action, without prejudice, with each party to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases