Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00900/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00900-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RED BULL GmbH, ) 

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:05-cv-0900-GEB-JFM

)

v. )

) ORDER

RED RAVE, INC., a Nevada )

corporation, and CARYl COCHRAN, )

an individual, ) 

)

Defendants. )

)

On May 1, 2006, the parties filed a “Stipulation for Entry

of Final Judgment, Including [a] Permanent Injunction Against

Defendants . . .” (“the Stipulation”). The Stipulation reveals the

parties have reached a settlement in this action. Nonetheless, the

parties request the Court enter the proposed final judgment and

permanent injunction attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit A. 

However, the Stipulation does not indicate that Defendants will not

abide by the parties’ agreed upon settlement, such that a permanent

injunction and retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement is

required. 

“[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that the court

should [grant a permanent injunction and] exercise continuing

Case 2:05-cv-00900-GEB -JFM Document 32 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

jurisdiction is not binding upon the court.” Arata v. Nu Skin Int'l,

Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996). “According to well

established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent

injunction must satisfy [the injunctive relief] test before a court

may grant such relief.” Ebay v. Mercexchange, --- U.S. ----, 2006 WL

1310670 at *2 (May 15, 2006). The injunctive relief test includes an

inquiry into “whether future violations are sufficiently likely to

warrant an injunction.” United States v. Laerdal Mfg. Corp., 73 F.3d

852, 856 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, the parties have not shown the need

for a permanent injunction. Therefore, the Court will not enter the

permanent injunction proposed by the parties. 

Additionally, exercising jurisdiction over the parties’

settlement has not been shown “essential to the conduct of federalcourt business.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.

375, 382 (1994). Therefore, jurisdiction will not be exercised over

the parties’ settlement.

Since the Stipulation reveals this action has been settled,

and the proposed injunction will not be issued and jurisdiction will

not be exercised over the parties’ settlement, this action is

dismissed without prejudice. See Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d

191, 194 (5th Cir. 1980) (revealing that when a settlement is

tantamount to a stipulated dismissal, a dismissal order should issue). 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00900-GEB -JFM Document 32 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 2