5 ms·

" In other words, it doesn’t even matter if everyone knows that McDonald’s sells burgers called Big Macs: There are ways to prove it, and McDonald’s didn’t both

" In other words, it doesn’t even matter if everyone knows that McDonald’s sells burgers called Big Macs: There are ways to prove it, and McDonald’s didn’t bother. Don’t tell us, show us. There are rules, Ronald, and you will follow them." I can see the logic behind that. If Uncle Bill's Bait Shop's printout is not good enough, should McDonald's menu be?

sjwright 8y ago
I can't see the logic. McDonald's submitted multiple affidavits, brochures, menus, packaging and actual sales figures. What else could they possibly do to prove a trademark is being used? If that's not enough to prove the use of a trademark, then the value of registering a trademark in Europe has plummeted to zero.
- tlamponi 8y ago
  They "show me that you use it" wasn't only for bigmac, it was also for trademarks they did not used but: > "trademark bullying; registering brand names... which are simply stored away in a war chest to use against future competitors". https://www.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://www.independent.ie/business/irish/its-like-connacht-...
  - sjwright 8y ago
    That's right, but here we're talking about the trademark for Big Mac. I'm pretty sure they're using that one.
- TrolTure 8y ago
  I think they require some 'independent' source of information, like news articles. I'm quite surprised by the comments on this article. McDonald's didn't present their case properly while that should have been easy. Seems the onus is on them, regardless they still have their appeal.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    They provided an independent source of information. You say it should have been easy yet nobody has been able to articulate exactly what they should have done. It's not like the lawyers were being lazy; the information they did supply was quite detailed and would have taken substantial effort to collate.

sjwright 8y ago

I can't see the logic. McDonald's submitted multiple affidavits, brochures, menus, packaging and actual sales figures. What else could they possibly do to prove a trademark is being used? If that's not enough to prove the use of a trademark, then the value of registering a trademark in Europe has plummeted to zero.

tlamponi 8y ago
They "show me that you use it" wasn't only for bigmac, it was also for trademarks they did not used but: > "trademark bullying; registering brand names... which are simply stored away in a war chest to use against future competitors". https://www.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://www.independent.ie/business/irish/its-like-connacht-...
- sjwright 8y ago
  That's right, but here we're talking about the trademark for Big Mac. I'm pretty sure they're using that one.
TrolTure 8y ago
I think they require some 'independent' source of information, like news articles. I'm quite surprised by the comments on this article. McDonald's didn't present their case properly while that should have been easy. Seems the onus is on them, regardless they still have their appeal.
- sjwright 8y ago
  They provided an independent source of information. You say it should have been easy yet nobody has been able to articulate exactly what they should have done. It's not like the lawyers were being lazy; the information they did supply was quite detailed and would have taken substantial effort to collate.