Sream, Inc. v. Sarah-Q, Inc. et al, No. 5:2016cv02375 - Document 13 (C.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SARAH-Q,INC. by Judge Terry J. Hatter: The Parties entered into a settlement agreement as of January 20, 2017 (Settlement Agreement), which requires entry of the stipulated judgment . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: That judgment be entered in favor of Sream against Sarah-Q on all claims. For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Sarah-Q as to future disputesbetween Sarah-Q and Sream, and only for such p urposes, Sarah-Q 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 t hereto and thereunder. The RooR Marks are valid and enforceable. Sarah-Q, and those acting on Sarah-Qs behalf (including its owners, shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, andpartners), are permanent ly 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 Injunction). (See order for further details). (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (shb)

Download PDF

Sream, Inc. v. Sarah-Q, Inc. et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SREAM, INC, a California corporation, 12 13 Case No. 5:16-cv-02375-TJH-KKx Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr. Plaintiff, v. 14 15 SARAH-Q, INC., et al., 16 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SARAH-Q, INC. [JS-6] Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 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 Sarah-Q, Inc. (“Sarah-Q”), alleging that Sarah-Q violated Sream’s rights under 15 U.S.C. 6 §§ 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. § 17200 et seq. (“Action”); 7 8 9 10 B. The Parties entered into a settlement agreement as of January 20, 2017 (“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: 11 1. That judgment be entered in favor of Sream against Sarah-Q on all claims. 12 2. For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Sarah-Q as to future disputes 13 between Sarah-Q and Sream, and only for such purposes, Sarah-Q admits the following: 14 a. Mr. Martin Birzle is now, and has been at all times since the dates of issuance, 15 the owner of United States Trademark Registration Nos. 2,235,638; 2,307,176; 16 and 3,675,839 (the “RooR Marks”) and of all rights thereto and thereunder. 17 b. The RooR Marks are valid and enforceable. 18 c. Since at least 2013, Plaintiff Sream has been the exclusive licensee of the 19 RooR Marks in the United States. Mr. Birzle has been granted all 20 enforcement rights to Sream to sue for obtain injunctive and monetary relief 21 for past and future infringement of the RooR Marks. d. Sarah-Q, by the actions described in the complaint, has infringed upon the 22 RooR Marks. 23 24 3. Sarah-Q, and those acting on Sarah-Q’s behalf (including its owners, 25 shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and 26 partners), are permanently enjoined from producing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, 27 offer for sale, advertising, promoting, licensing, or marketing (a) any product bearing the 28 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. Sarah-Q 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 20, 2017 19 Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr. United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 JUDGMENT

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.