6 ms·

Summary: Ireland fast-food restaurant "Supermac" is expanding into the EU and has a burger called the "Mighty Mac" [1] which is basically a clone of a Big Mac.

Summary: Ireland fast-food restaurant "Supermac" is expanding into the EU and has a burger called the "Mighty Mac" [1] which is basically a clone of a Big Mac. You can see their whole menu here [2]. Obviously, McDonald's thinks "Supermac" and "Mighty Mac" infringe/dilute its own "Big Mac" trademark. I don't know why this article seems to be presenting this as a fight over chicken sandwiches. From their menu, Supermac is clearly a burger chain that also has chicken sandwiches, just like McD's. I'm genuinely confused as to how McDonald's could have lost this. McDonald's sells Big Mac sandwiches (using the Big Mac name) all over Europe. So none of this makes any sense to me. [1] https://order.supermacs.ie/product/customise/31 https://order.supermacs.ie/product/customise/31 [2] https://supermacs.ie/supermacs-food/ https://supermacs.ie/supermacs-food/

binarymax 2y ago
They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. You see, they got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but they use a sesame seed bun. My buns have no seeds.
- banish-m4 2y ago
  Nixing the chewy, slimy, limp, cooked pickle slices would be an improvement but I guess RealMickyD's never dogfooded their own slop.
- imchillyb 2y ago
  Coming to America was an interesting treatise on American corporate culture. It was also a movie I think.
  - queuebert 2y ago
    Second best documentary ever made, after Idiocracy.
    - walthamstow 2y ago
      Idiocracy is such an on-point movie that it made my educated, high-earning, early 30s wife consider having more than one kid. Watching it in the 2020s with knowledge of today's fertility rates is quite something.
throwawaycities 2y ago
The Judgment is in fact limited, the challenge was all encompassing, but McDonald’s still retains certain Big Mac Trademark rights. From the Judgment: >106 In view of all the foregoing, the contested decision must be annulled as regards ‘chicken sandwiches’, ‘foods prepared from poultry products’ and ‘services rendered or associated with operating restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food and drink prepared for consumption and for drive-through facilities; preparation of carry-out foods’. 107 The present action must be dismissed as to the remainder. (Note: 107 is referring at least to “meat sandwiches” which McDonald continues to hold Big Mac Trademark rights.) https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=BEF2817B82A777A4E0878E796CB9BE77?text=&docid=286812&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10093637 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsession...
nolok 2y ago
> I'm genuinely confused as to how McDonald's could have lost this. McDonald's sells Big Mac sandwiches (using the Big Mac name) all over Europe. So none of this makes any sense to me. My understanding is that their trademark was NOT specifically over beef burger but much larger, and Supermac was thus able to prove they didn't use that name for the categories covered by the trademark for over 5 years (which is the limit to invalidate). So they lost THAT trademark. > I don't know why this article seems to be presenting this as a fight over chicken sandwiches Because the one notable category that got them invalidated is chicken sandwich, that mcdonald registered the big mac name over. TLDR : the lawyers screwed up.
perlgeek 2y ago
McDonalds sells beef hamburgers as "Big Mac". After this ruling, they still have the exclusive right to do that. However, it seems that McD tried to use their trade mark to prevent Supermac to sell other burgers with similar (but not the same) name. This ruling essentially says: "Big Mac" is only protected for selling beef sandwiches, and "Supermac" is distinct enough that if you use it to sell chicken sandwiches, that's fine. In the process, the court ruled that McD didn't actually use the "Big Mac" trademark for anything except beef hamburgers, so it's no longer a protected term for adjacent things. You could call your restaurant "Big Mac", and it wouldn't be a trademark violation, because your restaurant is not a beef hamburger.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  > You could call your restaurant "Big Mac" This seems exceedingly strange to me. Is that really correct? By analogy, you're saying I could open a computer store called MacBook Pro and Apple couldn't do anything about it? Or open a store called Mickey Mouse that sells plush animals, and Disney would be helpless to prevent it? That doesn't seem plausible.
  - _3u10 2y ago
    Mighty MacBook Pro, but apple gets the trademark for computers made with Apple chips. lol. Then try opening a store called Champagne, see what happens.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > Then try opening a store called Champagne, see what happens. Champagne is a region, and geographical indications are not trademark in the usual sense, so that's basically fine. Nobody will insist you rename a store as "sparkling wine".
  - a_paddy 2y ago
    The classic example of this is Apple (a.k.a. Apple Corps and their subsidiaries Apple Films, Apple Records, Apple Studio etc) versus Apple Computer. In this case, the original complaint was by McDonald's saying that customers would confused the "mac" in Supermac's with the Big Mac. Using your analogy it would like having a company called "Mouse House" that sells anthropomorphic mice characters.
notatoad 2y ago
>I don't know why this article seems to be presenting this as a fight over chicken sandwiches. because it is. McDonald's has lost the trademark for Big Mac, specifically in regard to chicken sandwiches. Beef hamburgers are unaffected.
kragen 2y ago
is dilution even a tort in the eu tho
tialaramex 2y ago
> I'm genuinely confused as to how McDonald's could have lost this. Interesting. The purpose of the trademark rules is to prevent confusion. Owning marks serves no other purpose except to enable customers to correctly correlate this mark to this company. You can see how this evolves in England's "Passing Off" which is broader than just trademark protection. So, if the other side can afford lawyers (and so you can't just win by default) you need to persuade a court that it would be confusing for customers if they could do the thing you want to forbid, are you still genuinely confused ? The court was not persuaded that a "Mighty Mac" is confusing and people might think it's a Big Mac, nor that "Supermac" is confusing and people might think it's McDonalds. Seems reasonable.
account42 2y ago
> which is basically a clone of a Big Mac. This doesn't look anything like a Big Mac: https://supermacs.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Supermacs-Mighty-Mac-5.png https://supermacs.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Supermacs-Mi...
- ricktdotorg 2y ago
  you're being sarcastic, surely? supermac: https://supermacs.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Supermacs-Mighty-Mac-5.png https://supermacs.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Supermacs-Mi... big mac: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Big_Mac_hamburger.jpg/1200px-Big_Mac_hamburger.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Bi... both are: a 2-patty beefburger in a 3-slice sesame-seed bun with a slice of american cheese adjacent to the lower patty. that is "doesn't look anything like"?
  - account42 2y ago
    Yes, that describes a double cheeseburger which is absolutely generic. What differentiates the Big Mac from other double cheeseburgers and gives it its unique taste is the unique sauce which is nothing like the generic ketchup you can see on the Mighty Mac.
    - hiatus 2y ago
      > This doesn't look anything like a Big Mac > What differentiates the Big Mac from other double cheeseburgers and gives it its unique taste You said it doesn't _look_ the same, then you mention taste.
MR4D 2y ago
> I'm genuinely confused as to how McDonald's could have lost this. I have an opinion - the EU really doesn't like dominating American companies. The history pattern here is very clear.
jimbobthrowawy 2y ago
This does make the "chicken big mac" they sold as a temporary item in Ireland (and I assume elsewhere) last year and earlier this year make a lot more sense.
ccppurcell 2y ago
Even the description is practically word for word! Some time before I was born there was a promotion whereby saying "two all beef patties... on a sesame seed bun" in under a certain time got you a free big Mac.

binarymax 2y ago

They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. You see, they got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but they use a sesame seed bun. My buns have no seeds.

banish-m4 2y ago
Nixing the chewy, slimy, limp, cooked pickle slices would be an improvement but I guess RealMickyD's never dogfooded their own slop.
imchillyb 2y ago
Coming to America was an interesting treatise on American corporate culture. It was also a movie I think.
- queuebert 2y ago
  Second best documentary ever made, after Idiocracy.
  - walthamstow 2y ago
    Idiocracy is such an on-point movie that it made my educated, high-earning, early 30s wife consider having more than one kid. Watching it in the 2020s with knowledge of today's fertility rates is quite something.

throwawaycities 2y ago

The Judgment is in fact limited, the challenge was all encompassing, but McDonald’s still retains certain Big Mac Trademark rights. From the Judgment: >106 In view of all the foregoing, the contested decision must be annulled as regards ‘chicken sandwiches’, ‘foods prepared from poultry products’ and ‘services rendered or associated with operating restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food and drink prepared for consumption and for drive-through facilities; preparation of carry-out foods’. 107 The present action must be dismissed as to the remainder. (Note: 107 is referring at least to “meat sandwiches” which McDonald continues to hold Big Mac Trademark rights.) https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=BEF2817B82A777A4E0878E796CB9BE77?text=&docid=286812&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10093637 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsession...

nolok 2y ago

> I'm genuinely confused as to how McDonald's could have lost this. McDonald's sells Big Mac sandwiches (using the Big Mac name) all over Europe. So none of this makes any sense to me. My understanding is that their trademark was NOT specifically over beef burger but much larger, and Supermac was thus able to prove they didn't use that name for the categories covered by the trademark for over 5 years (which is the limit to invalidate). So they lost THAT trademark. > I don't know why this article seems to be presenting this as a fight over chicken sandwiches Because the one notable category that got them invalidated is chicken sandwich, that mcdonald registered the big mac name over. TLDR : the lawyers screwed up.

perlgeek 2y ago

McDonalds sells beef hamburgers as "Big Mac". After this ruling, they still have the exclusive right to do that. However, it seems that McD tried to use their trade mark to prevent Supermac to sell other burgers with similar (but not the same) name. This ruling essentially says: "Big Mac" is only protected for selling beef sandwiches, and "Supermac" is distinct enough that if you use it to sell chicken sandwiches, that's fine. In the process, the court ruled that McD didn't actually use the "Big Mac" trademark for anything except beef hamburgers, so it's no longer a protected term for adjacent things. You could call your restaurant "Big Mac", and it wouldn't be a trademark violation, because your restaurant is not a beef hamburger.

crazygringo 2y ago
> You could call your restaurant "Big Mac" This seems exceedingly strange to me. Is that really correct? By analogy, you're saying I could open a computer store called MacBook Pro and Apple couldn't do anything about it? Or open a store called Mickey Mouse that sells plush animals, and Disney would be helpless to prevent it? That doesn't seem plausible.
- _3u10 2y ago
  Mighty MacBook Pro, but apple gets the trademark for computers made with Apple chips. lol. Then try opening a store called Champagne, see what happens.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > Then try opening a store called Champagne, see what happens. Champagne is a region, and geographical indications are not trademark in the usual sense, so that's basically fine. Nobody will insist you rename a store as "sparkling wine".
- a_paddy 2y ago
  The classic example of this is Apple (a.k.a. Apple Corps and their subsidiaries Apple Films, Apple Records, Apple Studio etc) versus Apple Computer. In this case, the original complaint was by McDonald's saying that customers would confused the "mac" in Supermac's with the Big Mac. Using your analogy it would like having a company called "Mouse House" that sells anthropomorphic mice characters.

notatoad 2y ago

>I don't know why this article seems to be presenting this as a fight over chicken sandwiches. because it is. McDonald's has lost the trademark for Big Mac, specifically in regard to chicken sandwiches. Beef hamburgers are unaffected.

kragen 2y ago

is dilution even a tort in the eu tho

tialaramex 2y ago

> I'm genuinely confused as to how McDonald's could have lost this. Interesting. The purpose of the trademark rules is to prevent confusion. Owning marks serves no other purpose except to enable customers to correctly correlate this mark to this company. You can see how this evolves in England's "Passing Off" which is broader than just trademark protection. So, if the other side can afford lawyers (and so you can't just win by default) you need to persuade a court that it would be confusing for customers if they could do the thing you want to forbid, are you still genuinely confused ? The court was not persuaded that a "Mighty Mac" is confusing and people might think it's a Big Mac, nor that "Supermac" is confusing and people might think it's McDonalds. Seems reasonable.

account42 2y ago

> which is basically a clone of a Big Mac. This doesn't look anything like a Big Mac: https://supermacs.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Supermacs-Mighty-Mac-5.png https://supermacs.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Supermacs-Mi...

ricktdotorg 2y ago
you're being sarcastic, surely? supermac: https://supermacs.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Supermacs-Mighty-Mac-5.png https://supermacs.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Supermacs-Mi... big mac: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Big_Mac_hamburger.jpg/1200px-Big_Mac_hamburger.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Bi... both are: a 2-patty beefburger in a 3-slice sesame-seed bun with a slice of american cheese adjacent to the lower patty. that is "doesn't look anything like"?
- account42 2y ago
  Yes, that describes a double cheeseburger which is absolutely generic. What differentiates the Big Mac from other double cheeseburgers and gives it its unique taste is the unique sauce which is nothing like the generic ketchup you can see on the Mighty Mac.
  - hiatus 2y ago
    > This doesn't look anything like a Big Mac > What differentiates the Big Mac from other double cheeseburgers and gives it its unique taste You said it doesn't _look_ the same, then you mention taste.

MR4D 2y ago

> I'm genuinely confused as to how McDonald's could have lost this. I have an opinion - the EU really doesn't like dominating American companies. The history pattern here is very clear.

jimbobthrowawy 2y ago

This does make the "chicken big mac" they sold as a temporary item in Ireland (and I assume elsewhere) last year and earlier this year make a lot more sense.

ccppurcell 2y ago

Even the description is practically word for word! Some time before I was born there was a promotion whereby saying "two all beef patties... on a sesame seed bun" in under a certain time got you a free big Mac.