mcD loses big mac trademark in the eu burger king takes full advantage

[nightshadea]

apparently McDonalds lost the right to the name “big mac” in the European union and burger king responds with this ….MSN

so far its just in Sweden but it might spread

[Quartz]

That’s worth a Big Snigger.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! I like this part:

“McDonald’s just lost its trademark for the Big Mac for suing a much smaller player,” Burger King Sweden CEO Iwo Zakowski said in a statement.”It’s too much fun for us to stay away.”

I clicked one of the links in the article and it led to this article on Fortune:

Irish fast food company Supermac’s has won a case against McDonald’s, overturning the fast food giant’s right to the trademark “Big Mac” in Europe.

Following a 2017 request by Supermac’s, the European Union Intellectual Property Office has ruled that McDonald’s had not proven genuine use of the term “Big Mac” as a burger or restaurant name. Supermac’s claimed that McDonald’s had engaged in “trademark bullying” and “registering brand names… which are simply stored away in a war chest to use against future competitors,” according to The Independent. McDonald’s had reportedly trademarked the SnackBox, one of Supermac’s products, despite the American chain not offering the item itself.

Apparently Supermac had not been able to expand because MacDonald’s was using their trademark to block them. Nice to see the little guy win this one, eh.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Whoops; duplicate post.

[Smapti]

Seems to me that it’s either a pretty silly decision on the part of the court, or plain incompetence on the part of McDonald’s, that would result in a ruling that McDonald’s can’t prove that “Big Mac” is the name of a sandwich they sell.

I mean, IANAL, but I could prove that McDonald’s sells a sandwich called “Big Mac” in, like, five minutes, armed with nothing but my cell phone camera.

[Chronos]

I think this has been misrepresented pretty egregiously. It looks (on my superficial non-expert reading) like the actual court decision was not that McDonald’s doesn’t have a trademark, just that some other company’s product wasn’t an infringement on it. And Burger King’s response doesn’t depend on the trademark status of the Big Mac, because you can say “Like X, but better” even if X is actually trademarked.

[Riemann]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Whoops; duplicate post.

Okay, but why delete the “quarry” part? Do you feel it’s inappropriate to say it more than once?

[markn_1]

@Chronos

And Burger King’s response doesn’t depend on the trademark status of the Big Mac, because you can say “Like X, but better” even if X is actually trademarked.

Is that really true? I had thought otherwise. And if so, why did Burger King wait until after the ruling to start using the name “Big Mac” themselves? They’ve had decades when they could have done that.

[Smid]

Should be a lawsuit against the use of the word Big in “Big Mac” anyway.

[Joey_P]

@markn_1

Is that really true? I had thought otherwise. And if so, why did Burger King wait until after the ruling to start using the name “Big Mac” themselves? They’ve had decades when they could have done that.

They probably hadn’t really thought about it until now. It sounds like they were just having some fun and cashing in on the publicity that the other two restaurants are getting.
I’m guessing that it’s just temporary and the names will be reverted back in a week or two. In the mean time, they’ve made worldwide news.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Chronos

I think this has been misrepresented pretty egregiously. It looks (on my superficial non-expert reading) like the actual court decision was not that McDonald’s doesn’t have a trademark, just that some other company’s product wasn’t an infringement on it. And Burger King’s response doesn’t depend on the trademark status of the Big Mac, because you can say “Like X, but better” even if X is actually trademarked.

The court decision WAS that McDonald’s’ claim of a trademark on the term “Big Mac” was nullified. The basis was that they did not prove “continuous use” of the alleged trademark for a period of five years. The court noted that, while McDonald’s offered a variety of advertising purporting to show that it had offered Big Macs for sale across the EU, the proffered evidence “do not provide conclusive information that the products marked with the EUTM [European Union Trademark] are offered for actual sale, as there is no confirmation of any commercial transactions, either online, or via brick-and-mortar operations”. The court went on to say:

Even if the goods were offered for sale, there is no data about how long the products were offered on the given webpage or in other ways, and there is no information of any actual sales taking place or any potential and relevant consumers being engaged, either through an offer, or through a sale.

Finally, as far as the relevant services are considered, there is no single piece of evidence that refers to any of the registered services being offered under the EUTM.

In short, McDonald’s’ attorneys didn’t offer evidence sufficient to prove to the court that they actually SOLD Big Macs all across Europe, that people actually bought them, that advertising of the product happened across the entire relevant period, etc.

So they have, indeed, lost their trademark.

It should be noted that there was never a “trademark infringement” claim. What was going on was that “Supermacs”, a chain of burger joints located in Ireland, wanted to expand to the Continent. They filed for a TM on the name “Supermac” across the whole EU. McDonald’s objected, on the basis that the requested trademark would confuse consumers.

@Smapti

Seems to me that it’s either a pretty silly decision on the part of the court, or plain incompetence on the part of McDonald’s, that would result in a ruling that McDonald’s can’t prove that “Big Mac” is the name of a sandwich they sell.

I mean, IANAL, but I could prove that McDonald’s sells a sandwich called “Big Mac” in, like, five minutes, armed with nothing but my cell phone camera.

If you had tried that, you would have lost the case the same way that McDonald’s did. Which doesn’t disprove your claim of incompetence. It appears to me a classic case of attorneys assuming that they didn’t have to go to a lot of trouble to make their point, and the court replied that the lack of effort was fatal. This is a not uncommon mistake by attorneys who are conditioned to assume that they are “obviously” right. :rolleyes:

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Good points, DSYoungEsq. The Fortune article I linked to does say

Although the ruling has immediate effect, McDonald’s can appeal.

so I doubt this is over yet.

[Chronos]

[Moderating]

Riemann, if you have a problem with Snowboarder Bo (or any other poster), take it to the Pit.

[Chronos]

[Not moderating]

Of course the lawyers didn’t present evidence that McDonald’s sells Big Macs. Why the heck would they do that? If lawyers went into that level of obvious detail, court cases would never end.

[actualliberalnotoneofthose]

@Smid

Should be a lawsuit against the use of the word Big in “Big Mac” anyway.

Yeah, I think it only has 2 ounces of meat.

[Chronos]

Which is twice as much as a regular hamburger.

[CarnalK]

@Chronos

[Not moderating]

Of course the lawyers didn’t present evidence that McDonald’s sells Big Macs. Why the heck would they do that? If lawyers went into that level of obvious detail, court cases would never end.

Are you serious? That was the detail required to defend their trademark, it’s not some deep layer unworthy of the lawyers’ time.

Am I remembering correctly that you were the one complaining about McDonald’s being “bullied” by Burger King with the 1 cent Whopper app promo a couple months back? You seem oddly protective of a multibillion multinational.

[Chronos]

It’s not that I care about McDonald’s, per se. I just don’t like bullies. And I really don’t like it when bullying is a way to get people to like you: Maybe it works, but it shouldn’t.

And I also care about frivolous wastes of the legal system’s time, and anyone trying to argue before a court that McDonald’s doesn’t sell Big Macs is doing just that.

[DrForrester]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Good points, DSYoungEsq. The Fortune article I linked to does say so I doubt this is over yet.

Are you saying that you would prefer an alternate ending to the Big Mac (debate)? I think this ordeal would make a great film.

[Ludovic]

I too would like my Big Macs to come with a happy ending.