5 ms·

EUIPO says McDonalds didn't prove they sold bigmacs in europe... The decision says Mcdonalds submitted 3 affidavits, brochures, menus, packaging, and SALES FIGU

EUIPO says McDonalds didn't prove they sold bigmacs in europe... The decision says Mcdonalds submitted 3 affidavits, brochures, menus, packaging, and SALES FIGURES of Big Macs in Europe... and the EUIPO said they don't believe any of it. Bizarre. If actual sales aren't evidence of use, how do you prove this? If I had a trademark in europe, I would be worried. This has to be overturned on appeal. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Big-Mac-euipo.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Bi...

crooked-v 8y ago
> If I had a trademark in europe, I would be worried. Especially given that the final resort of "walk into a store and buy one and present it to a judge" is impossible for, say, enterprise software shops that build nominally custom variations of their product for each client.
- lovich 8y ago
  Should you have a trademark that prevents anyone else from using the name because you made a custom one off for a single customer?
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    If you're producing variations of Wibbleworths Customer Management System for a variety of clients and marketing them all under the Wibbleworths brand, that's absolutely something that should be trademarkable.
- pgeorgi 8y ago
  That wouldn't work for a court case in 2018 that covers the 2012-2017 time frame anyway.
JackuB 8y ago
They haven’t submited any actual sales figures: > They claimed significant sales figures in relation to ‘Big Mac’ sandwiches
Svip 8y ago
> The decision says Mcdonalds submitted 3 affidavits, brochures, menus, packaging, and SALES FIGURES of Big Macs in Europe... and the EUIPO said they don't believe any of it. The articles I could immediately find in English were pretty bad at elaborating on this point (although others have posted links to better ones), but I found a decent one in Danish.[0] (Where they actually interview an expert!) It explains the EUIPO decision. Specifically that documentation released by the company themselves has limited value to the EUIPO, and a Wikipedia article unfortunately cannot be trusted (the company could just have edited/created it). Had McDonald's provided newspaper articles as evidence (of which there are plenty!), then the EUIPO would probably have settled the matter differently. But since their only non-McDonald's documentation was a Wikipedia article, it really sounds like they didn't bother. [0] https://www.avisen.dk/det-kan-vi-laere-af-big-mac-sagen_534367.aspx https://www.avisen.dk/det-kan-vi-laere-af-big-mac-sagen_5343...
okket 8y ago
Looks like you need independent evidence before the EUIPO and McDs legal team only came up with their own sources, plus Wikipedia. Had they only presented the 'Big Mac Index', I think it would have been enough? https://www.economist.com/news/2019/01/10/the-big-mac-index https://www.economist.com/news/2019/01/10/the-big-mac-index
1wd 8y ago
McDonalds failed to provide sufficient data. They only provided tiny table of numbers for the UK, France and Germany. E.g. <quote>...the total number of products sold under the Mark between 2011 and 2016 was in excess of (units in millions): 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Big Mac 75 75 75 75 75 75 </quote> The numbers fail to cover the entirety of the relevant time period (2012-2017 inclusive), region (all member states of the EU!) and goods (e.g. sandwiches). They are also just self-proclaimed numbers with zero independent evidence to back them up. The EUIPO notification spells this out clearly on page 4. Sure, McDonalds should appeal and will probably overturn this, but not because the EUIPO made a mistake, but because McDonalds's lazy tactic to appeal to its marketing material. (After starting all this to bully a tiny competitor to keep them from expanding in the EU.)
- coke12 8y ago
  This isn't bullying a tiny competitor. McD's would have no problem with a company called "SuperBurger" instead of "SuperMacs". They want to protect their customers from potential confusion.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    Supermac's have been doing business in Ireland since 1978. They are a household name with over 100 restaurants. The chain is named after the founder, Pat McDonagh. The burden of proof lies with McDonalds to prove that there is a significant risk of confusion; Neither I nor the EUIPO are persuaded of that.
    - Proven 8y ago
      What's wrong with BigMc's?
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  curious, on Appeal, are you allowed to submit new evidence? Or will McD claim that the court failed to look at it. On one hand, if you sold tens of (edited: Millions) of Big Macs a year something is there, use in commerce.

crooked-v 8y ago

> If I had a trademark in europe, I would be worried. Especially given that the final resort of "walk into a store and buy one and present it to a judge" is impossible for, say, enterprise software shops that build nominally custom variations of their product for each client.

lovich 8y ago
Should you have a trademark that prevents anyone else from using the name because you made a custom one off for a single customer?
- crooked-v 8y ago
  If you're producing variations of Wibbleworths Customer Management System for a variety of clients and marketing them all under the Wibbleworths brand, that's absolutely something that should be trademarkable.
pgeorgi 8y ago
That wouldn't work for a court case in 2018 that covers the 2012-2017 time frame anyway.

JackuB 8y ago

They haven’t submited any actual sales figures: > They claimed significant sales figures in relation to ‘Big Mac’ sandwiches

Svip 8y ago

> The decision says Mcdonalds submitted 3 affidavits, brochures, menus, packaging, and SALES FIGURES of Big Macs in Europe... and the EUIPO said they don't believe any of it. The articles I could immediately find in English were pretty bad at elaborating on this point (although others have posted links to better ones), but I found a decent one in Danish.[0] (Where they actually interview an expert!) It explains the EUIPO decision. Specifically that documentation released by the company themselves has limited value to the EUIPO, and a Wikipedia article unfortunately cannot be trusted (the company could just have edited/created it). Had McDonald's provided newspaper articles as evidence (of which there are plenty!), then the EUIPO would probably have settled the matter differently. But since their only non-McDonald's documentation was a Wikipedia article, it really sounds like they didn't bother. [0] https://www.avisen.dk/det-kan-vi-laere-af-big-mac-sagen_534367.aspx https://www.avisen.dk/det-kan-vi-laere-af-big-mac-sagen_5343...

okket 8y ago

Looks like you need independent evidence before the EUIPO and McDs legal team only came up with their own sources, plus Wikipedia. Had they only presented the 'Big Mac Index', I think it would have been enough? https://www.economist.com/news/2019/01/10/the-big-mac-index https://www.economist.com/news/2019/01/10/the-big-mac-index

1wd 8y ago

McDonalds failed to provide sufficient data. They only provided tiny table of numbers for the UK, France and Germany. E.g. <quote>...the total number of products sold under the Mark between 2011 and 2016 was in excess of (units in millions): 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Big Mac 75 75 75 75 75 75 </quote> The numbers fail to cover the entirety of the relevant time period (2012-2017 inclusive), region (all member states of the EU!) and goods (e.g. sandwiches). They are also just self-proclaimed numbers with zero independent evidence to back them up. The EUIPO notification spells this out clearly on page 4. Sure, McDonalds should appeal and will probably overturn this, but not because the EUIPO made a mistake, but because McDonalds's lazy tactic to appeal to its marketing material. (After starting all this to bully a tiny competitor to keep them from expanding in the EU.)

coke12 8y ago
This isn't bullying a tiny competitor. McD's would have no problem with a company called "SuperBurger" instead of "SuperMacs". They want to protect their customers from potential confusion.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  Supermac's have been doing business in Ireland since 1978. They are a household name with over 100 restaurants. The chain is named after the founder, Pat McDonagh. The burden of proof lies with McDonalds to prove that there is a significant risk of confusion; Neither I nor the EUIPO are persuaded of that.
  - Proven 8y ago
    What's wrong with BigMc's?
onetimemanytime 8y ago
curious, on Appeal, are you allowed to submit new evidence? Or will McD claim that the court failed to look at it. On one hand, if you sold tens of (edited: Millions) of Big Macs a year something is there, use in commerce.