Sream Inc v. Shamrock Smoke Shop Inc et al
| Sream Inc |
| Shamrock Smoke Shop Inc, Medici Investment Inc and Does |
| 8:2013cv01868 |
| November 27, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Philip S. Gutierrez |
| Alicia G. Rosenberg |
| Trademark |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
51
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT HASSAN NURU d/b/a SHAMROCK SMOKE SHOP by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, in favor of Hassan Nuru against Sream Inc Related to: Stipulation for Judgment 50 , PERMANENT INJUNCTION file d by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez against defendant Hassan Nuru: And good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: 1. That judgment be entered in favor of Sream against Nuru on all claims. 2. For the purposes of bin ding preclusive effect on Nuru as to future disputes between Nuru and Sream, and only for such purposes, Nuru 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 Trade mark Registration Nos. 2,235,638; 2,307,176; and 3,675,839 (the "RooR Marks") and of all rights thereto and thereunder. b. The RooR Marks are valid and enforceable. c. Since at least 2011, Plaintiff Sream has been the exclusive licensee o f the RooR Marks in the United States. Mr. Birzle has been granted all enforcement rights to Sream to sue for obtain injunctive and monetary relief for past and future infringement of the RooR Marks. d. Nuru, by the actions described in the compla int, has infringed upon the RooR Marks. 3. Nuru, and those acting on Nuru's behalf (including its owners, shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and partners), are permanently enjoined from p roducing, 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 (collecti vely, the "Injunction"). 4. Nuru is bound by the Injunction regardless of whether Mr. Martin Birzle assigns or licenses its intellectual property rights to another for so long as such trademark rights are subsisting, valid, and enforceabl e. The Injunction inures to the benefit of Mr. Martin Birzles successors, assignees, and licensees. 5. This Court (or if this Court is unavailable, any court within the Central District of California) shall retain jurisdiction over all disputes be tween and among the Parties arising out of the Settlement Agreement and Injunction, the Stipulation which includes the Injunction, and this final judgment, including but not limited to interpretation and enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 6. The Parties waive any rights to appeal this stipulated judgment, including without limitation the Injunction. (bm)
|
|
Filing
40
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, in favor of Sream Inc against Medici Investment Inc Related to: Stipulation for Judgment 39 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,AND DECREED THAT: 1. That judgment be ent ered in favor of Sream against Empire on all claims. 2. For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Empire as to future disputes with respect to the Action or Settlement Agreement between Empire on the one hand and Sream on the other hand, and only for such purposes, Empire, and those on Empire's behalf, including their owners, shareholders,principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and partners, arepermanently enjoined from using the RooR Marks (including, without limitation the term"RooR") and confusingly similar terms (collectively, the "Injunction"). (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lw)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
