Filed: Jul. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 20, 2016
Summary: STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT EMAD SAEED KASSEM MOHSEN JESUS G. BERNAL , District Judge . 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 EMAD SAEED KASSEM MOHSEN ("Mohsen"), alleging that Mohsen violatedSream's rights under 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c)
Summary: STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT EMAD SAEED KASSEM MOHSEN JESUS G. BERNAL , District Judge . 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 EMAD SAEED KASSEM MOHSEN ("Mohsen"), alleging that Mohsen violatedSream's rights under 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c),..
More
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT EMAD SAEED KASSEM MOHSEN
JESUS G. BERNAL, District Judge.
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 EMAD SAEED KASSEM MOHSEN ("Mohsen"), alleging that Mohsen violatedSream's rights under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1125(a), (c), and (d), and Cal. Bus & Prof. §17200 et seq. ("Action");
B. The Parties entered into a settlement agreement as of June 2016 ("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 Mohsen on all claims.
2. For the purposes of binding preclusive effect on Mohsen as to futuredisputes between Mohsen and Sream, and only for such purposes, Mohsen 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 Trademark 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 2013, Plaintiff Sream has been the exclusive licensee of 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. Mohsen, by the actions described in the complaint, has infringed upon the RooR Marks.
3. Mohsen, and those acting on Mohsen's behalf (including its owners, shareholders, principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, and partners), are permanently enjoined from producing, 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 (collectively, the "Injunction").
4. Mohsen is bound by the Injunction regardless of whether Mr. Martin Birzle assigns or licenses its intellectual property rights to another for so long as suchtrademark rights are subsisting, valid, and enforceable. The Injunction inures to the benefit of Mr. Martin Birzle's successors, assignees, and licensees.
5. This Court (or if this Court is unavailable, any court within the CentralDistrict of California) shall retain jurisdiction over all disputes between and among the Parties arising out of the Settlement Agreement and Injunction, the Stipulation which includesthe 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
