Sream Inc v. ZBI Enterprises, LLC et al, No. 8:2015cv01688 - Document 11 (C.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT ZBI ENTERPRISES, LLC by Judge Cormac J. Carney. See Judgment for more information. Related to: Stipulation for Judgment 10 (twdb)

Download PDF
Sream Inc v. ZBI Enterprises, LLC et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SREAM, INC, a California corporation, Case No. SACV15-01688-CJC-DFM 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 v. ZBI ENTERPRISES, LLC; GANPATI INVESTMENTS, INC.; ANAHEIM DREAM TOBACCO, INC.; and DOES 110 INCLUSIVE, STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT ZBI ENTERPRISES, LLC 18 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 1 2 3 4 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 ZBI 5 Enterprises, LLC (“ZBI Enterprises”), alleging that ZBI Enterprises violated Sream’s rights 6 under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. § 17200 et seq. 7 (“Action”); 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 B. The Parties entered into a settlement agreement as of November 2015 (“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. That judgment be entered in favor of Sream against ZBI Enterprises on all claims. 2. For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on ZBI Enterprises as to future 15 disputes between ZBI Enterprises and Sream, and only for such purposes, ZBI Enterprises 16 admits the following: 17 a. Mr. Martin Birzle is now, and has been at all times since the dates of issuance, 18 the owner of United States Trademark Registration Nos. 2,235,638; 2,307,176; 19 and 3,675,839 (the “RooR Marks”) and of all rights thereto and thereunder. 20 b. The RooR Marks are valid and enforceable. 21 c. Since at least 2011, Plaintiff Sream has been the exclusive licensee of the 22 RooR Marks in the United States. Mr. Birzle has been granted all 23 enforcement rights to Sream to sue for obtain injunctive and monetary relief 24 for past and future infringement of the RooR Marks. d. ZBI Enterprises, by the actions described in the complaint, has infringed upon 25 the RooR Marks. 26 27 28 3. ZBI Enterprises, and those acting on ZBI Enterprises’s behalf (including its owners, shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent 2 JUDGMENT 1 contractors, and partners), are permanently enjoined from producing, manufacturing, 2 distributing, selling, offer for sale, advertising, promoting, licensing, or marketing (a) any 3 product bearing the RooR Marks or (b) any design, mark, or feature that is confusingly 4 similar to the RooR Marks (collectively, the “Injunction”). 5 4. ZBI Enterprises is bound by the Injunction regardless of whether Mr. Martin 6 Birzle assigns or licenses its intellectual property rights to another for so long as such 7 trademark rights are subsisting, valid, and enforceable. The Injunction inures to the benefit 8 of Mr. Martin Birzle’s successors, assignees, and licensees. 9 5. This Court (or if this Court is unavailable, any court within the Central District 10 of California) shall retain jurisdiction over all disputes between and among the Parties 11 arising out of the Settlement Agreement and Injunction, the Stipulation which includes the 12 Injunction, and this final judgment, including but not limited to interpretation and 13 enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 14 15 6. The Parties waive any rights to appeal this stipulated judgment, including without limitation the Injunction. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 Dated: November 24, 2015_____ 21 Cormac J. Carney United States District Court Judge 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.