WebSep 29, 2024 · In sum, Plaintiff Taser International, Inc. (“Taser”) instituted this action in March 2016 against Defendant Phazzer Electronics, Inc. (“Phazzer”), asserting claims of patent and trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition. Doc. No. 1. Ultimately, default judgment was entered against Phazzer as a sanction. Doc. No. 183. WebOct 26, 2024 · Phazzer argued that: (1) Taser's requested order demanded relief in excess of that requested in the complaint; (2) the proposed order cannot enjoin all of the named nonparties to the case; and (3) the PTO is "best equipped to determine the validity of the patent and trademark at issue." Id. at 3-7.

Taser International, Inc. v. Phazzer Electronics, Inc. et al

WebOct 3, 2015 · PhaZZer Electronics, Inc. Apr 2007 - Present15 years 10 months. Product Development, Marketing, Strategic Management, Establishment of Distribution Chains, Brand Awareness, Corporate Structure ... WebOct 26, 2024 · ment against Phazzer. Order at 2, Taser Int’l, Inc. v. Phazzer Elecs., Inc., No. 6:16-cv-366 (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2024), ECF No. 152. That same day, counsel for Phazzer moved to withdraw, citing both irreconcilable differences and Phazzer’s failure to pay. The court denied the motion without prejudice, noting that it could be reasserted after sharp possibly no longer having strain

TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. PHAZZER …

Web`On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff Taser International, Inc. (“Taser”) filed this ` `action against Defendant Phazzer Electronics, Inc. (“Phazzer”) for patent and ` `trademark infringement, … WebTASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:16-cv-366-Orl-40LRH PHAZZER ELECTRONICS, INC., STEVEN ABBOUD, PHAZZER GLOBAL LLC and PHAZZER IP, LLC, Defendants. / ORDER This cause comes before the Court on the following matters: 1. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration with Renewed Stay Application (Doc. 374); 2. porridge versus oatmeal