Sream, Inc. v. Lincoln Tobacco Shop, Inc. et al, No. 5:2016cv02161 - Document 13 (C.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT LINCOLN TOBACCO SHOP, INC. by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, in favor of Sream, Inc. against Lincoln Tobacco Shop, Inc. related to: Stipulation for Permanent Injunction 12 . (See document for details.) (iva) Modified on 1/5/2017 (iva).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sream, Inc. v. Lincoln Tobacco Shop, 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 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN TOBACCO SHOP, INC., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02161-JGB-KK Hon. Jesus G. Bernal FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT LINCOLN TOBACCO SHOP, INC. Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 4 This Court, having made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law 5 6 pursuant to the parties’ stipulation: A. Plaintiff Sream, Inc. (“Sream” or “Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant 7 Lincoln Tobacco Shop, Inc. (“Lincoln-Inc”), alleging that Lincoln-Inc violated Sream’s 8 rights under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. § 17200 9 et seq. (“Action”); 10 11 12 13 B. The Parties entered into a settlement agreement as of January 3, 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: 14 1. That judgment be entered in favor of Sream against Lincoln-Inc on all claims. 15 2. For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Lincoln-Inc as to future 16 disputes between Lincoln-Inc and Sream, and only for such purposes, Lincoln-Inc admits 17 the following: 18 a. Mr. Martin Birzle is now, and has been at all times since the dates of issuance, 19 the owner of United States Trademark Registration Nos. 2,235,638; 2,307,176; 20 and 3,675,839 (the “RooR Marks”) and of all rights thereto and thereunder. 21 b. The RooR Marks are valid and enforceable. 22 c. Since at least 2013, Plaintiff Sream has been the exclusive licensee of the 23 RooR Marks in the United States. Mr. Birzle has been granted all 24 enforcement rights to Sream to sue for obtain injunctive and monetary relief 25 for past and future infringement of the RooR Marks. 26 27 d. Lincoln-Inc, by the actions described in the complaint, has infringed upon the RooR Marks. 28 2 JUDGMENT 1 3. Lincoln-Inc, and those acting on Lincoln-Inc’s behalf (including its owners, 2 shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and 3 partners), are permanently enjoined from producing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, 4 offer for sale, advertising, promoting, licensing, or marketing (a) any product bearing the 5 RooR Marks or (b) any design, mark, or feature that is confusingly similar to the RooR 6 Marks (collectively, the “Injunction”). 7 4. Lincoln-Inc is bound by the Injunction regardless of whether Mr. Martin 8 Birzle assigns or licenses its intellectual property rights to another for so long as such 9 trademark rights are subsisting, valid, and enforceable. The Injunction inures to the benefit 10 11 of Mr. Martin Birzle’s successors, assignees, and licensees. 5. This Court (or if this Court is unavailable, any court within the Central District 12 of California) shall retain jurisdiction over all disputes between and among the Parties 13 arising out of the Settlement Agreement and Injunction, the Stipulation which includes the 14 Injunction, and this final judgment, including but not limited to interpretation and 15 enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 16 17 6. The Parties waive any rights to appeal this stipulated judgment, including without limitation the Injunction. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 Dated: January 3, 2017 23 Hon. Jesus G. Bernal . Jesus G. l United States District Court Judge United t 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.
