TAZA SYSTEMS, LLC v. TAZA 21 CO., LLC et al, No. 2:2011cv00073 - Document 65 (W.D. Pa. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 60 Motion to Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 10/31/12. (map)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
TAZA SYSTEMS, LLC v. TAZA 21 CO., LLC et al Doc. 65 Dockets.Justia.com to designate Attorney Saadi to testify about topics not included in the Notice of Deposition. Although Taza21 did ask Taza Systems to produce a witness to testify as to what efforts Taza Systems undertook to clear its use and eventual registration of the trademark TAZA, it did not indicate that it intended to ask that witness whether Taza Systems diligence. notified the PTO of the results of its due This is unsurprising given that Taza21’s Affirmative Defenses and Amended Counterclaims do not seek cancellation or invalidation of Taza Systems’ trademarks on the ground that it failed to disclose common law, third-party uses of the name TAZA to the PTO. Instead, Taza21’s only claim seeking cancellation of the trademarks-in-suit on the grounds of non-disclosure to the PTO is based on Taza Systems’ failure to divulge the number of languages in which TAZA translates as “fresh.” [doc. no. 26 at Tenth Defense, para. 22 and Third Counterclaim, para. 20]. Because questions regarding what Taza Systems disclosed to the PTO regarding its due diligence fell outside the scope of the Notice of Deposition, and, in fact, outside the scope of the pleadings, Mr. Chamoun’s indication that Attorney Saadi would know more about that topic does not establish that Taza Systems violated its duty under Rule 30(b)(6). In summary, the areas in which Attorney Saadi was identified as having more knowledge than Mr. Chamoun were not 6
]]>
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.
