Sream Inc v. Sun Kyung Cho et al, No. 5:2013cv02197 - Document 34 (C.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DADDY'S SMOKE SHOP, INC. by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (adu)
Download PDF
Sream Inc v. Sun Kyung Cho et al Doc. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JS-6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 12 13 SREAM, INC, a California corporation, Plaintiff, 14 15 v. 16 17 18 19 SUN KYUNG CHO d/b/a CIGARETTE DEPOT; DADDY’S SMOKE SHOP, INC., a California corporation; FOUR ACES WHOLESALE, CORP., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, Case No. 5:13-cv-02197-VAP-SP [PROPOSED] STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DADDY’S SMOKE SHOP, INC. 20 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JUDGMENT 1 2 3 4 FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 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 5 Daddy’s Smoke Shop, Inc. (“Daddy”), alleging that Daddy 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 March 28, 2014 (“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 Daddy on all claims. 13 2. For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Daddy as to future disputes 14 with respect to the Action or Settlement Agreement between Daddy on the one hand and 15 Sream on the other hand, and only for such purposes, Daddy admits the following: 16 a. Mr. Martin Birzle is now, and has been at all times since the dates of issuance, 17 the owner of United States Trademark Registration Nos. 2,235,638; 2,307,176; 18 and 3,675,839 (the “RooR Marks”) and of all rights thereto and thereunder. b. Since at least 2011, Plaintiff Sream has been the exclusive licensee of the 19 20 RooR Marks in the United States. Mr. Brizle 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. c. Daddy, by the actions described in the complaint, has infringed upon the RooR 23 Marks. 24 25 3. Daddy, and those on Daddy’s behalf, including their owners, shareholders, 26 principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and partners, are 27 permanently enjoined from using the term “Sream” and confusingly similar terms 28 (collectively, the “Injunction”). 2 JUDGMENT 1 4. Daddy is bound by the Injunction regardless of whether Mr. Martin Birzle 2 assigns or licenses its intellectual property rights to another for so long as such trademark 3 rights are subsisting, valid, and enforceable. The Injunction inures to the benefit of Mr. 4 Martin Birzle’s successors, assignees, and licensees. 5 5. This Court (or if this Court is unavailable, any court within the Central District 6 of California) shall retain jurisdiction over all disputes between and among the Parties 7 arising out of the Settlement Agreement and Injunction, the Stipulation which includes the 8 Injunction, and this final judgment, including but not limited to interpretation and 9 enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 10 11 6. The Parties waive any rights to appeal this stipulated judgment, including without limitation the Injunction. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 Dated: April 21, 2014 17 Virginia A. Phillips United States District Court Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 JUDGMENT