Pursuant to this statute, a brand owner has a property interest in his brand as long as the brand remains properly recorded. The board responds by arguing that Tate failed to satisfy her burden of proving that the statute is unconstitutional. Due process considerations are invoked in administra tive proceedings. A party claiming infringement has the burden of demonstrating that infringement by first showing the existence of a protected property interest and then showing the interest has been affected in an impermissible way. Statutes are presumed to be constitutional.
Challengers bear the burden of proving that a statute is unconstitutional.
The board has interpreted this provision as implicitly imposing a duty on the brand owner to inform the board of any address changes to ensure that its records are current. We agree that an implicit requirement is present within the statute which requires a brand owner to inform the board of her whereabouts. The brand owner is in the best position to know her current address, and it is a simple matter for her to notify the board of any changes in her address. In 1995, the board rerecorded over 26,000 brands. It would be unreasonable to require the board to verify the current address for each brand owner.