3 ms·
No, OP is right. This isn't stability. By "stability" people mean government decisions are predictable and make sense, not that tiny EU companies can create big
by repolfx 8y ago
No, OP is right. This isn't stability. By "stability" people mean government decisions are predictable and make sense, not that tiny EU companies can create big problems for major corporations by exploiting the bureaucracy.
What will CEOs of large American companies think when looking at this ruling? They will think the following:
"Everyone knows McDonalds makes a product called Big Mac. It's their primary burger product and has been a stable brand for decades. Europeans know this. I've been to Europe and eaten a Big Mac myself. Their usage of this brand should not have been in question to start with. Why was it in dispute? Then their lawyers submitted lots of documentation to satisfy the bureaucratic box tickers, and apparently that still wasn't enough. If a brand as big as McDonalds can't successfully keep their primary product trademarked in the EU, what chance do I have? Maybe I'll think twice before prioritising these markets."
- BuckRogers 8y agoBoth FranzFerdiNaN and phatfish below weren't able to infer or comprehend what form of stability I was referring to. It's absolutely laughable, outright, to consider that I meant the EU or the nations that it consists of are "unstable". I don't care about the UK or EU, this is just an objective analysis of business realities. It's the political expectations that matter. Threatening something as known as the Big Mac is begging for even worse parasitical behavior on the behalf of corporations. It's not going to encourage any investment into EU boundaries, other than what's required to siphon money out. It's the same thing as Trump disrupting trade arrangements with China. There's nothing offensive or aggressive about these observations unless the reader is defensive and has a bone to pick on their part.