4 ms·

This ruling doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in fair treatment for foreign companies in Europe. Its one thing if this was a default judgement because McDona

This ruling doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in fair treatment for foreign companies in Europe. Its one thing if this was a default judgement because McDonald's was boycotting the proceedings, but they filed a good faith response. If McDonald's is a bullying litigant - there are ways to deal with it that don't bring the court itself into disrepute.

pergadad 8y ago
In the contrary, it shows that both big and small companies are treated equally. What would not have been enough for a less known company was also not enough for Mcdonald's, shcih simply didn't make the effort to submit outside evidence. The judgement was a bit legalistic in so far as common sense would have said 'obviously McD sells Big Macs' but it's simply that they didn't submit the right kind of evifencr. From other articles McD seemingly was acting like a trademark bully in registering it's competitors' product names - meaning they (presumably less known outside Ireland) had to provide objective evidence. It's only right that the burden of proof is applied equally to all, McD shot itself in the foot, first in causing this issuey first by filing frivolous trademarks and trying to block a competitors entering the markety causing the whole process, and then by not making the effort to submit the right kind of evidence. No one else is to blame and this is a huge e endorsement of the fairness of the EU trademark system. They can appeal so it will all be a non-story in a while.
FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
Why do you assume the problem is with the EU and not with McDonald’s? The people who judge the matter have clear rules to follow, rules that McDonald’s lawyers are intimately familiar with. And yet they messed up. Is it some grand conspiracy against foreign companies or an arrogant multinational that is used to rules not mattering to them?

pergadad 8y ago

In the contrary, it shows that both big and small companies are treated equally. What would not have been enough for a less known company was also not enough for Mcdonald's, shcih simply didn't make the effort to submit outside evidence. The judgement was a bit legalistic in so far as common sense would have said 'obviously McD sells Big Macs' but it's simply that they didn't submit the right kind of evifencr. From other articles McD seemingly was acting like a trademark bully in registering it's competitors' product names - meaning they (presumably less known outside Ireland) had to provide objective evidence. It's only right that the burden of proof is applied equally to all, McD shot itself in the foot, first in causing this issuey first by filing frivolous trademarks and trying to block a competitors entering the markety causing the whole process, and then by not making the effort to submit the right kind of evidence. No one else is to blame and this is a huge e endorsement of the fairness of the EU trademark system. They can appeal so it will all be a non-story in a while.

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago

Why do you assume the problem is with the EU and not with McDonald’s? The people who judge the matter have clear rules to follow, rules that McDonald’s lawyers are intimately familiar with. And yet they messed up. Is it some grand conspiracy against foreign companies or an arrogant multinational that is used to rules not mattering to them?