4 ms·

The rules are clearly not simple. If they were, McDonalds' team of lawyers wouldn't have been tripped up by them, and in particular if the rules were simple and

The rules are clearly not simple. If they were, McDonalds' team of lawyers wouldn't have been tripped up by them, and in particular if the rules were simple and constant then it'd have been clear what sources would count as independent evidence. Regardless, expecting employees of companies to be perfect in every way and terminating something as valuable as the Big Mac trademark if they aren't is just bad government. People make mistakes, doubly so if the rules are badly written or being maliciously enforced. Overall what I see is a near constant stream of attacks on American businesses by the EU, usually via impossibly vague or absurdly written rules. The EU claims to be based on a system of laws but it sure doesn't look like it when you see how things play out in reality.

oliwarner 8y ago
I don't think they tripped over the complexity here, they tripped over their hubris. They thought their client's fame was enough to make a case, and didn't put in the leg work to defend it. As I've said a couple of times now it's the law (for every EUTM holder) that you have to absolutely defend your eligibility. As it should be. TMs are a restriction on other people's freedoms. Should also point out that this was a contestable decision. They (or, more likely, their successors) can probably prove everything that needs to be proven And using better sources than Wikipedia. They'll earn back their mark registration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_r... There certainly are laws that are protectionist, and have been written with American companies in mind, not because those companies are American, but because those companies are exploiting EU citizens in [what they feel to be] unfair ways. Monopolies, data sharing, etc. The fines and lawsuits that come off the back of these aren't on-the-spot instances either. The laws are written in an open process. They're debated for years. These companies get warnings. And GDPR lawsuits affect organisations on both sides of the pond.

oliwarner 8y ago

I don't think they tripped over the complexity here, they tripped over their hubris. They thought their client's fame was enough to make a case, and didn't put in the leg work to defend it. As I've said a couple of times now it's the law (for every EUTM holder) that you have to absolutely defend your eligibility. As it should be. TMs are a restriction on other people's freedoms. Should also point out that this was a contestable decision. They (or, more likely, their successors) can probably prove everything that needs to be proven And using better sources than Wikipedia. They'll earn back their mark registration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_r... There certainly are laws that are protectionist, and have been written with American companies in mind, not because those companies are American, but because those companies are exploiting EU citizens in [what they feel to be] unfair ways. Monopolies, data sharing, etc. The fines and lawsuits that come off the back of these aren't on-the-spot instances either. The laws are written in an open process. They're debated for years. These companies get warnings. And GDPR lawsuits affect organisations on both sides of the pond.