3 ms·
I've read several articles about this and I can't for the life of me understand why: "McDonald’s had not proven genuine use of Big Mac, which it trademarked in
by socalnate1 8y ago
I've read several articles about this and I can't for the life of me understand why: "McDonald’s had not proven genuine use of Big Mac, which it trademarked in 1996, as a burger or restaurant name."
The dispute with Supermac's is another matter; but I just can't fathom McDonalds's being told that it didn't prove it's use of "Big Mac" as a burger name.
Maybe someone better versed in European IP law can help?
- pedrocx486 8y agoI saw this on a thread on Reddit: >The lawyers royally fucked up. >All they had to do was provide proof that McDonalds sells Big Macs. Their evidence was signed affidavits by high ranking board members, advertisements, a Wikipedia entry and a few others of a similar vein. >Problem was they failed to provide any evidence that McDonalds actually sells Big Macs, just that Big Macs exist and judges really don’t like “everybody knows” being treated as evidence.
- vertline3 8y ago"All they had to do was provide proof that McDonalds sells Big Macs." I still think that seems odd. Seems the judge can say "I need proof these are sold" and force them to show weekly sales receipts?