4 ms·

This story has already been debunked on a previous HN post. McDonald's lost the trademark to Supermac which they registered but never used. Trademark law requir

This story has already been debunked on a previous HN post. McDonald's lost the trademark to Supermac which they registered but never used. Trademark law requires you to show proof of usage. That name was in use by their Irish competitor but never by McDonald's. The term "Big Mac" was not involved in the dispute.

zimpenfish 8y ago
Are they sure about that debunking? If you read the EUIPO decision, it specifically says that "BIG MAC" was revoked. > The applicant filed a request for revocation of European Union trade mark registration No 62 638 ‘BIG MAC’ (word mark) (the EUTM). > The EUTM proprietor’s rights in respect of European Union trade mark No 62 638 are revoked in their entirety as from 11/04/2017. That seems fairly clear that "BIG MAC" was the focus of the decision. Am I reading this wrong? https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Big-Mac-euipo.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Bi...
detaro 8y ago
Do you maybe mean this "debunking" (closest HN search found?)? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/not-even-the-eu-is-that-stupid-mcdonalds-hasnt-really-lost-the-trademark-to-big-mac https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/not-even-the-eu-i...
mimixco 8y ago
Well, I'll admit the story is very confusing. The EU decision another poster linked does mention Big Mac and it also cites many examples where they used it in commerce but it says those aren't sufficient. Seems pretty strange to me. I don't think they have any chance of keeping Supermac, which they registered and didn't use, but I'll bet they fight to the teeth to keep Big Mac.
- detaro 8y ago
  The decision reads to me as if McDonald's didn't think they'd actually need to properly establish the factors as required by the law, since who'd think they're not using Big Mac, and submitted only some badly connected pieces of evidence. And officals don't like arguments that amount to half-assing and relying on everyone knows where the law calls for concrete evidence, or even aren't allowed to consider facts not brought forward by the party.
- mzs 8y ago
  Maybe other press coverage has been confusing, but this Courthouse News Service article is very clear. CNS tends to be excellent in coverage about legal matters for non-lawyers.
mzs 8y ago
No and it's literally in the first few lines of the legal document linked in the second paragraph* Notification of a decision to the applicant Alicante, 11/01/2019 TOMKINS & CO. 5 Dartmouth Road Dublin 6 IRLANDA Your reference: MT9434 Revocation number: 000014788 C Contested trade mark: 000062638 BIG MAC If you read the eight pages it's infuriating the rationale the court used. "Taking into account the submitted evidence as a whole, it is concluded that the documents do not provide conclusive information that the products marked with the EUTM are offered for actual sale…" Here's the evidence BTW » The evidence to be taken into account is the following:  3 affidavits, signed by representatives of McDonald’s companies in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. They claimed significant sales figures in relation to ‘Big Mac’ sandwiches for the period between 2011 and 2016 and attach examples of the packaging of the sandwich (boxes), promotional brochures and what appear to be menus, further referred to below:  Brochures and printouts of advertising posters, in German, French and English, showing, inter alia, ‘Big Mac’ meat sandwiches; and packaging for sandwiches (boxes); the materials appear to originate from the EUTM proprietor and are dated between 2011 and 2016. The brochures and posters show asandwich on the menu along with other products, or on its own, and the prices are also provided on some of the materials; other documents appear to be blank menus in which the price can be filled in. The EUTM appears on the submitted material in relation to sandwiches.  Printouts from the websites www.mcdonalds.de, www.mcdonalds.at, www.mcdonalds.be, www.mcdonalds.cz, www.mcdonalds.dk, www.mcdonalds.es, www.mcdonalds.fi, www.mcdonalds.fr, www.mcdonalds.hu, www.mcdonalds.ie, www.mcdonalds.it, www.mcdonalds.nl, www.mcdonalds.pl, www.mcdonalds.ro, www.mcdonalds.se, www.mcdonalds.si, www.mcdonalds.sk, www.mcdonalds.co.uk, dated between 07/01/2014 and 03/10/2016. They depict a variety of sandwiches, inter alia ‘Big Mac’ sandwiches, some of which state that they are sandwiches made with beef meat.  A printout from en.wikipedia.org, providing information on ‘Big Mac’ hamburger, its history, content and nutritional values in different countries. Having examined the material listed above in its entirety, the Cancellation Division finds that the evidence is insufficient to establish genuine use of the trade mark. * https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Big-Mac-euipo.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Bi...
- mimixco 8y ago
  Yeah, I'm not sure how menu boards and packaging don't constitute enough evidence. If that's really the case, anyone with an EU trademark should be very worried.

zimpenfish 8y ago

Are they sure about that debunking? If you read the EUIPO decision, it specifically says that "BIG MAC" was revoked. > The applicant filed a request for revocation of European Union trade mark registration No 62 638 ‘BIG MAC’ (word mark) (the EUTM). > The EUTM proprietor’s rights in respect of European Union trade mark No 62 638 are revoked in their entirety as from 11/04/2017. That seems fairly clear that "BIG MAC" was the focus of the decision. Am I reading this wrong? https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Big-Mac-euipo.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Bi...

detaro 8y ago

Do you maybe mean this "debunking" (closest HN search found?)? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/not-even-the-eu-is-that-stupid-mcdonalds-hasnt-really-lost-the-trademark-to-big-mac https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/not-even-the-eu-i...

mimixco 8y ago

Well, I'll admit the story is very confusing. The EU decision another poster linked does mention Big Mac and it also cites many examples where they used it in commerce but it says those aren't sufficient. Seems pretty strange to me. I don't think they have any chance of keeping Supermac, which they registered and didn't use, but I'll bet they fight to the teeth to keep Big Mac.

detaro 8y ago
The decision reads to me as if McDonald's didn't think they'd actually need to properly establish the factors as required by the law, since who'd think they're not using Big Mac, and submitted only some badly connected pieces of evidence. And officals don't like arguments that amount to half-assing and relying on everyone knows where the law calls for concrete evidence, or even aren't allowed to consider facts not brought forward by the party.
mzs 8y ago
Maybe other press coverage has been confusing, but this Courthouse News Service article is very clear. CNS tends to be excellent in coverage about legal matters for non-lawyers.

mzs 8y ago

No and it's literally in the first few lines of the legal document linked in the second paragraph* Notification of a decision to the applicant Alicante, 11/01/2019 TOMKINS & CO. 5 Dartmouth Road Dublin 6 IRLANDA Your reference: MT9434 Revocation number: 000014788 C Contested trade mark: 000062638 BIG MAC If you read the eight pages it's infuriating the rationale the court used. "Taking into account the submitted evidence as a whole, it is concluded that the documents do not provide conclusive information that the products marked with the EUTM are offered for actual sale…" Here's the evidence BTW » The evidence to be taken into account is the following:  3 affidavits, signed by representatives of McDonald’s companies in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. They claimed significant sales figures in relation to ‘Big Mac’ sandwiches for the period between 2011 and 2016 and attach examples of the packaging of the sandwich (boxes), promotional brochures and what appear to be menus, further referred to below:  Brochures and printouts of advertising posters, in German, French and English, showing, inter alia, ‘Big Mac’ meat sandwiches; and packaging for sandwiches (boxes); the materials appear to originate from the EUTM proprietor and are dated between 2011 and 2016. The brochures and posters show asandwich on the menu along with other products, or on its own, and the prices are also provided on some of the materials; other documents appear to be blank menus in which the price can be filled in. The EUTM appears on the submitted material in relation to sandwiches.  Printouts from the websites www.mcdonalds.de, www.mcdonalds.at, www.mcdonalds.be, www.mcdonalds.cz, www.mcdonalds.dk, www.mcdonalds.es, www.mcdonalds.fi, www.mcdonalds.fr, www.mcdonalds.hu, www.mcdonalds.ie, www.mcdonalds.it, www.mcdonalds.nl, www.mcdonalds.pl, www.mcdonalds.ro, www.mcdonalds.se, www.mcdonalds.si, www.mcdonalds.sk, www.mcdonalds.co.uk, dated between 07/01/2014 and 03/10/2016. They depict a variety of sandwiches, inter alia ‘Big Mac’ sandwiches, some of which state that they are sandwiches made with beef meat.  A printout from en.wikipedia.org, providing information on ‘Big Mac’ hamburger, its history, content and nutritional values in different countries. Having examined the material listed above in its entirety, the Cancellation Division finds that the evidence is insufficient to establish genuine use of the trade mark. * https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Big-Mac-euipo.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Bi...

mimixco 8y ago
Yeah, I'm not sure how menu boards and packaging don't constitute enough evidence. If that's really the case, anyone with an EU trademark should be very worried.