![]() ![]() Mr Quinn said that Haremi's solicitors wrote to the defendants about the items being offered for sale. Mr Quinn says that following an inspection of the goods that were offered for sale in the two stores, it is believed that the items are the same as the garments that were supplied and subsequently rejected by Haremi. Independent Clothing insisted that there were no major issues with the garments, however, he said that Haremi was not happy with the product supplied and did not pay for them. In addition he said that the item's seams were puckered, drawstrings were frayed and unfinished, and treads were pulled at multiple seams. However, Mr Quinn said that the clothing was rejected and returned for reasons including that colour was inconsistent throughout the garments and very different from the original sample, the neckline rib width was thicker and wider than what was ordered, as well as being broken and poorly constructed. It had previously ordered items from that supplier. Mr Quinn said that in August 2022 Haremi ordered over 1,000 4thARQ branded menswear items from Independent Clothing for the Christmas market for €24,400. In a sworn document to the court Paul Quinn said that it is feared that the garments maybe ones that were ordered from Independent Clothing, which sells and supplies clothing. They also want Independent Clothing Limited to disclose the names and addresses to every entity it has supplied items bearing Haremi's trademark. They also seek orders requiring Safet Duran and Mohsan Bari to provide it with the names and addresses of every person or entity who supplied them with any items bearing the plaintiff's trademark. Represented by Kelley Smith SC with David Allen Bl Haremi seeks several orders against the defendants including an injunction restraining the defendants from selling, marketing, advertising or dealing in any way with goods bearing the plaintiff's trademark. The judge adjourned the matter to Friday's sitting of the court. When the matter came before the High Court on Monday Mr Justice Brian O'Moore granted Haremi, on an ex-parte basis, permission to serve short notice of the injunction proceedings on the defendants. The plaintiff has also sued Independent Clothing Ltd, Unit 34 Fashion City, Ballymount Road, Dublin 24, which is alleged to have provided the clothing to Haremi, that was subsequently rejected and returned. The action is against Safet Duran, the alleged operator of 'Bella Moda' in Gorey Shopping Centre, Co Wexford and Mohsan Bari, the alleged operator of 'Elle Boutique', located in the Square Shopping Centre in Tallaght, Dublin, the two stores where the trademarked items were allegedly discovered on sale last month. Haremi fears that its brand and reputation with the public will be significantly damaged due to the alleged passing off of allegedly inferior and substandard garments bearing the '4thARQ' brand and trademark.Īs a result, the company seeks various orders from the court including an injunction restraining the shops from selling goods bearing the 4thARQ trademark. It believes that the items originate from a batch of garments it ordered from a Dublin-based clothing supplier but rejected last year. ![]() Haremi claims that its goods should not be available for sale at the stores and can only be purchased by the public via its website. ![]() Haremi's claim arises from the discovery last month of garments, including hoodies and sweatpants and jumpers bearing their company's logo and trademark for sale at two fashion outlets, one in Dublin and one in Co Wexford. Read More : Girl who claimed to be Maddie McCann says 'stay tuned' and boards mystery flight The company's shareholders and founders are Ms Connolly Quinn and her husband Paul Quinn. The action has been brought by Haremi Limited, which the court heard operates a clothing business that sells mainly leisure and sportswear under the trademarked brand name '4thARQ' exclusively through its website. ![]() A clothing company co-owned by well-known fashion blogger and social media personality Rosie Connolly Quinn has launched High Court proceedings against three entities it claims have engaged in 'passing off' the firm's trademarked garments. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |