|HBI's Barely There: this bra|
is apparently invisible, which
says much for the power
of imagination ...
Alas for Dunnes, upon whom the burden of proof of use was placed, the evidence of use of BARELY THERE was, er, barely there. It consisted of a statutory declaration sworn by Dunnes' company secretary, Thomas Sheridan. Dunnes had used the mark for underwear since 1998, he said, but all tangible evidence to prove this use was destroyed when Dunnes moved its head office premises some years ago. In any event, he said, such documentation would not normally be kept within the retail trade where changeover of products occurs on a regular basis.
Sheridan supported this (absence of) evidence by providing aggregate turnover figures which, he said, showed the value of sales of some 75,000 BARELY THERE products under the mark between 2004 and 2008. However, he said, the Patents Office could see the actual turnover figures: they were “confidential business information”, the disclosure of which could harm the company.
|Fergal auditions for his dream job,|
keeping business records at Dunnes ...
As for the statement that Dunnes' turnover figures were “classified business information”, this was just “too weak an excuse” since full documentation of all sales would not have been required to prove use.
Says Merpel, when footballers tumble to the ground, pretending that they have been tripped up or fouled by players on the opposing team, they can get into big trouble. Trade mark owners who pretend that they have used their trade marks when there is plainly no evidence to support such use deserve no better treatment.
As bare as you dare here
Bare bear here