4 ms·

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 challen

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

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