Thursday, 7 February 2019

McDonald's loses EU trademark to Big Mac for bullying smaller restaurant

quote [ Supermac’s said it can now expand in the United Kingdom and Europe. It said it had never had a product called “Big Mac” but that McDonald’s had used the similarity of the two names to block the Irish chain’s expansion.

“Supermac’s are delighted with their victory in the trademark application and in revoking the Big Mac trademark which had been in existence since 1996,” founder Pat McDonagh told Reuters in an email. ]

Burger King in Sweden is trolling them with a Better than Big Macs menu.
[SFW] [Mafia] [+3 Good]
[by foobar@4:27pmGMT]


Hugh E. said @ 5:26pm GMT on 7th Feb [Score:3 Funny]
"Burger King in Sweden is trolling them with a Better than Big Macs menu."

arrowhen said @ 5:39pm GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Insightful]
Not Big Mac's what?
dolemite said @ 5:51pm GMT on 7th Feb [Score:2]
Gůd yaab spōting dot ǽror en derr grammärskjefűrgen!!
TM said @ 8:03pm GMT on 7th Feb
Bork bork bork.
Jack Blue said @ 9:30pm GMT on 8th Feb
Det är precis så vi låter. Hela bunten. 😁
knumbknutz said @ 6:30pm GMT on 7th Feb
I have a couple of silvers to give away to the first 2 members who want them.

Hugh E. said @ 6:41pm GMT on 7th Feb
conception said @ 7:32pm GMT on 7th Feb
While hilarious, it does sound like Big M got fucked -

McDonald’s, which sells its flagship “Big Mac” burgers internationally, submitted printouts of European websites as evidence, as well as posters, packaging, and affidavits from company representatives attesting to “Big Mac” sales in Europe.

The EUIPO said the affidavits from McDonald’s needed to be supported by other types of evidence, and that the websites and other promotional materials did not provide that support.
That seems like bullshit though
“You aren’t using your Trademark.” “Here is billions in advertising for us using it to sell this thing we sell billions of.” “Nope, don’t see it. You lose.”
dolemite said @ 10:03pm GMT on 7th Feb
I had the same impression.

I agree with the first half of the ruling; that Supermac's did not infringe the trademark and should be free to conduct/expand their business. However the official rationale for voiding the Big Mac trademark arouses in me a certain incredulity.

Did the committee have a pre-existing agenda here or was McD's outmanouvered in the lobbying/bribery game? Enquiring dolemites want to know.
5th Earth said @ 4:03am GMT on 8th Feb
The issue apparently is that they didn't provide any evidence that anyone actually *bought* a Big Mac in Europe, or that it was even possible to do so. Advertising a product is one thing but they basically failed to demonstrate the product actually exists on a consumer level. Which is a pretty pedantic detail, but this is international trademark law and it tends to hinge on pedantic details.
dolemite said @ 3:33pm GMT on 8th Feb
Pedantic is exactly the right word.
conception said @ 3:50pm GMT on 11th Feb
So, what you're saying is there are several dead McDonald's lawyers rotting in some ditch somewhere?
foobar said @ 2:57am GMT on 11th Feb
spazm said @ 1:33pm GMT on 8th Feb
Ah, this would have made a perfect +10 Trollfood.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings