Sream, Inc. v. Sally Yun et al, No. 8:2014cv01000 - Document 23 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 21 by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell, in favor of Sream, Inc. and against Sally Yun on all claims. Yun, and those on Yun's behalf, including their owners, shareholders, principals, off icers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and partners, are permanently enjoined from using the RooR Marks (including, without limitation the term "RooR") and confusingly similar terms (collectively, the "Injunction"). (lom)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sream, Inc. v. Sally Yun et al Doc. 23 NO JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 13 SREAM, INC, a California corporation, Plaintiff, 14 15 Case No. 8:14-cv-01000-BRO-AN STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION v. 16 17 18 19 SALLY YUN, CHECK YOUR HEAD AGAIN LLC, and MUSIC REVOLUTION, INC.; and DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 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 Sally 5 Yun, an individual doing business as 9M Smoke Shop (“Yun”), alleging that Yun violated 6 Sream’s rights under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. § 7 17200 et seq. (“Action”); 8 9 10 11 B. The Parties entered into a settlement agreement as of August 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 Yun on all claims. 13 2. For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Yun as to future disputes with 14 respect to the Action or Settlement Agreement between Yun on the one hand and Sream on 15 the other hand, and only for such purposes, Yun 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. 19 b. Since at least 2011, 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. 23 c. Yun, by the actions described in the complaint, has infringed upon the RooR 24 25 Marks. 3. Yun, and those on Yun’s behalf, including their owners, shareholders, 26 principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and partners, are 27 permanently enjoined from using the RooR Marks (including, without limitation the term 28 “RooR”) and confusingly similar terms (collectively, the “Injunction”). 2 JUDGMENT 1 4. Yun 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 12 13 14 15 6. The Parties waive any rights to appeal this stipulated judgment, including without limitation the Injunction. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 2, 2014 ____________________________________ HONORABLE BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 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.
