8 ms·

McD was definitely not minding its own business when the government suddenly showed up. From https://m.independent.ie/business/irish/its-like-connacht-winning-a

McD was definitely not minding its own business when the government suddenly showed up. From https://m.independent.ie/business/irish/its-like-connacht-winning-against-the-all-blacks-supermacs-ceo-responds-to-big-mac-trademark-success-against-mcdonalds-37713005.html https://m.independent.ie/business/irish/its-like-connacht-wi... : McDonald’s previously hit Supermacs with a 41-page objection against its plans to use the Supermac’s name in Europe stating that it would "take unfair advantage of the distinctive character and repute" of trademarks previous won by the global restaurant giant. The US firm partly based its objection on already secured trademarks for its products such as the ‘Big Mac’ and ‘Chicken McNuggets’, claiming introducing Supermac’s into the market would cause confusion.

eridius 8y ago
If McDonald's genuinely thought Supermac's expansion would cause customer confusion, then they're not only right to challenge it but they have a duty to challenge it in order to protect their trademark.
- jacobolus 8y ago
  McDonald’s is famous for trying to sue a Scottish woman who started a sandwich shop in England called McMunchies, claiming that they owned any use of “Mc” to refer to food. Along with various other small clearly unrelated businesses with Irish/Scottish owners. Which brought Lord Godfrey MacDonald, of Clan MacDonald, down on them (“I am The MacDonald”).
  - Lio 8y ago
    There’s something particularly egregious about large corporations trying trademark widely used generic words or terms. Such behaviour is prohibited most places. That these companies try intimidating people with spurious law suits makes it easy to dislike them. My own personal favourite is a dodgy gym eqipment company which has been recently bullying various blogers for using the generic term for a group of cyclists, peloton. They can’t have the word it belongs to common language. It’s crazy. It’s like if McDonalds tried to trademark “hamburger” and then threatened to sue people who live in Hamburg.
    - jayalpha 8y ago
      If I remember correctly, Disney has a trademark for "snow-white".
    - kingofhdds 8y ago
      Protection of a generic word within particular context may be absolutely fair. Say, you made an OS, and called it "Pretzel". You can't go, and prohibit anyone to call their pretzels pretzels, but if some big corpo Shmoogle will create their own product called Pretzel OS, I'm pretty sure you'll be not ok with it. "Mc" is no different, if applied narrowly to burgers there's no reason why it can't be copyrighted, because within the context it's not in fact a generic term. Crazy behavior of copyright lawyers is a problem for sure, but a separate one.
      - Lio 8y ago
        In the case of the gym manufacturer they've taken a word from the sport of road cycling, peloton from the French for platoon, and are now harassing anyone using that word to describe cycling related software. What's particularly annoying is that their product is a spinning "bike" which has nothing to do with road cycling apart from pedalling. Specifically the Digital Peloton Vlog, which reviews cycling simulators and software.
- csydas 8y ago
  In fact there is no duty to challenge. You can search the USPTO documents up and down and this is not considered during trademark disputes. It generally is a good idea, but whether you as a trademark owner prevent dilution or not is not your responsibility. So no, McDonalds does not have a duty to do so, only an option. https://www.uspto.gov/about-trademarks https://www.uspto.gov/about-trademarks
  - eridius 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure that's completely wrong. Everything I've heard about trademarks says you must protect them or you risk losing them. There's even a wikipedia page on "Generic trademark" about the problem of trademarked items becoming generic terms and thus at risk of losing legal protection in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark
sjwright 8y ago
Even if McDonald's were being total dicks about Supermac's, the remedy shouldn't be for the Government to act like a petulant child.
- pergadad 8y ago
  It's not the government. It's an independent agency that follows it's procedures correctly no matter whether it's a mom&pop shop or a global giant. McD caused the whole issue and then didn't bother submitting the right kind of evidence.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    What was the right kind of evidence?
    - josefx 8y ago
      Seems like they submittet proof that they used the trademark in marketing materials, but no independent proof that they actually managed to sell even a single BigMac commercially.
      - sjwright 8y ago
        They provided detailed sales numbers.
        vertex-four 8y ago
        They provided the number “75” for each year with nothing to back it up.
    - kabes 8y ago
      The independent kind. Like said many times by others here, a news article fron those years would have sufficed.
- TheLuddite 8y ago

eridius 8y ago

If McDonald's genuinely thought Supermac's expansion would cause customer confusion, then they're not only right to challenge it but they have a duty to challenge it in order to protect their trademark.

jacobolus 8y ago
McDonald’s is famous for trying to sue a Scottish woman who started a sandwich shop in England called McMunchies, claiming that they owned any use of “Mc” to refer to food. Along with various other small clearly unrelated businesses with Irish/Scottish owners. Which brought Lord Godfrey MacDonald, of Clan MacDonald, down on them (“I am The MacDonald”).
- Lio 8y ago
  There’s something particularly egregious about large corporations trying trademark widely used generic words or terms. Such behaviour is prohibited most places. That these companies try intimidating people with spurious law suits makes it easy to dislike them. My own personal favourite is a dodgy gym eqipment company which has been recently bullying various blogers for using the generic term for a group of cyclists, peloton. They can’t have the word it belongs to common language. It’s crazy. It’s like if McDonalds tried to trademark “hamburger” and then threatened to sue people who live in Hamburg.
  - jayalpha 8y ago
    If I remember correctly, Disney has a trademark for "snow-white".
  - kingofhdds 8y ago
    Protection of a generic word within particular context may be absolutely fair. Say, you made an OS, and called it "Pretzel". You can't go, and prohibit anyone to call their pretzels pretzels, but if some big corpo Shmoogle will create their own product called Pretzel OS, I'm pretty sure you'll be not ok with it. "Mc" is no different, if applied narrowly to burgers there's no reason why it can't be copyrighted, because within the context it's not in fact a generic term. Crazy behavior of copyright lawyers is a problem for sure, but a separate one.
    - Lio 8y ago
      In the case of the gym manufacturer they've taken a word from the sport of road cycling, peloton from the French for platoon, and are now harassing anyone using that word to describe cycling related software. What's particularly annoying is that their product is a spinning "bike" which has nothing to do with road cycling apart from pedalling. Specifically the Digital Peloton Vlog, which reviews cycling simulators and software.
csydas 8y ago
In fact there is no duty to challenge. You can search the USPTO documents up and down and this is not considered during trademark disputes. It generally is a good idea, but whether you as a trademark owner prevent dilution or not is not your responsibility. So no, McDonalds does not have a duty to do so, only an option. https://www.uspto.gov/about-trademarks https://www.uspto.gov/about-trademarks
- eridius 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's completely wrong. Everything I've heard about trademarks says you must protect them or you risk losing them. There's even a wikipedia page on "Generic trademark" about the problem of trademarked items becoming generic terms and thus at risk of losing legal protection in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark

sjwright 8y ago

Even if McDonald's were being total dicks about Supermac's, the remedy shouldn't be for the Government to act like a petulant child.

pergadad 8y ago
It's not the government. It's an independent agency that follows it's procedures correctly no matter whether it's a mom&pop shop or a global giant. McD caused the whole issue and then didn't bother submitting the right kind of evidence.
- sjwright 8y ago
  What was the right kind of evidence?
  - josefx 8y ago
    Seems like they submittet proof that they used the trademark in marketing materials, but no independent proof that they actually managed to sell even a single BigMac commercially.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      They provided detailed sales numbers.
      - vertex-four 8y ago
        They provided the number “75” for each year with nothing to back it up.
  - kabes 8y ago
    The independent kind. Like said many times by others here, a news article fron those years would have sufficed.
TheLuddite 8y ago