Peter and Diane Biden v C4Waterman Inc

In the matter of *Peter and Diane Biden v C4Waterman Inc*, heard before Hearing Officer Alison Windsor of the Trade Marks Hearings, the dispute concerned the alleged non-use of registered trade marks. The applicants, Peter and Diane Biden (referred to as the Opponents), sought the removal of trade mark registrations held by C4Waterman Inc (the Respondent) from the Register. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Respondent had genuinely commercially used the registered trade marks during the relevant period for the goods in respect of which they were registered.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the Opponents had discharged the onus of proving that the Respondent had not made genuine commercial use of the Waterman Marks. This required the Hearing Officer to assess the evidence presented by the Opponents to substantiate their claim of non-use and determine if this evidence, on the balance of probabilities, established the alleged non-use.

The Hearing Officer found that the onus rested on the Opponents to demonstrate real commercial use of the Waterman Marks. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Hearing Officer concluded that the Opponents had failed to satisfy this onus. Consequently, as the Opponents had not successfully rebutted the allegation of non-use, the Hearing Officer directed that the relevant trade mark registrations, numbers 678898 and 705390, be removed from the Register in their entirety. This removal was to take effect one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was filed, in which case the removal would be stayed pending the outcome of any appeal.