2 ms·

I think it goes like this: McDonald is a name that comes from Gaelic, which is used in both Scotland and Ireland. Mc is shortened from Mac, mac is literally "so

by memsom 2y ago

I think it goes like this: McDonald is a name that comes from Gaelic, which is used in both Scotland and Ireland. Mc is shortened from Mac, mac is literally "son" in Irish and Scottish Gaelic, so "Mac Donald" means "the son of Donald" and "Donaldson" would be a more "English" rendering - it is a common surname. McDonald's have tries to claim for a long time that "Mac" is their exclusive trademarkable name. It is not. It is a word in a language that most of the people who eat in McDon;d's do not speak, but it is a really common prefix as previously discussed. This would be a bit like opening a restaurant that sells some random fast food - let's say chicken, and then claiming no one else can call anything, for example "Kentucky" because your restaurant name makes use of it, you trademarked it, so therefore no one can use it. When you get your head around why "Mac" is not trademarkable, you can then see why Supermac's went for the angle they did - they needed to find an argument that stuck to topple McDonald's death grip on the name that they really should never have been allowed to own in the first place.

bigstrat2003 2y ago
I think that works for "Supermac", but it seems to me like "Mighty Mac" is a clear attempt to piggyback on the Big Mac name. I don't think that the argument you gave is very persuasive in that case. So yeah "Mac" might be a common thing in the culture, but there's also some shenanigans going on here too.
- memsom 2y ago
  It is probably a bit naughty, but Mighty Mac is no different than Big Mac really. Mac is an element of their name. I think they probably did it to see what McD's would do?
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Free publicity too. (Edit: on the other hand, I guess with the legal bills it must have been pretty expensive)
tivert 2y ago
> McDonald's have tries to claim for a long time that "Mac" is their exclusive trademarkable name. It is not. It is a word in a language that most of the people who eat in McDon;d's do not speak, but it is a really common prefix as previously discussed. I don't know EU law, but I don't buy this argument. Some very common words are trademarkable (e.g. Apple) in certain trade contexts. You seem to be arguing only a neologism can be trademarkable. And that doesn't touch on the "not used for chicken sandwiches" part, which seems to be a key part of the actual argument. > This would be a bit like opening a restaurant that sells some random fast food - let's say chicken, and then claiming no one else can call anything, for example "Kentucky" because your restaurant name makes use of it, you trademarked it, so therefore no one can use it. In the context of anything, or in the context of the fast food market? Because I think it would be legitimate to block a new fast food restaurant called "Kentucky Chicken" on trademark grounds.
- memsom 2y ago
  > I don't know EU law, but I don't buy this argument. Some very common words are trademarkable (e.g. Apple) in certain trade contexts. You seem to be arguing only a neologism can be trademarkable. Apple is not a great example[1] >And that doesn't touch on the "not used for chicken sandwiches" part, which seems to be a key part of the actual argument. From what I can tell, they are using that to prove that Mac can't be used to enforce a blanket ban - which is what McD's wanted. > In the context of anything, or in the context of the fast food market? Because I think it would be legitimate to block a new fast food restaurant called "Kentucky Chicken" on trademark grounds. Even if you sold chicken in Kentucky? I think it is not trademarkable IMO, because it is obvious that it will conflict with something in the past , preset or future. It is very antagonistic. Having said that, we locally have this restaurant "Ken's Fried Chicken"[2] and they have managed to ape KFC for 20+ years. We also had a video chain called "Blockbusters" and "Blockbuster" sued them out of business, despite the former existing in the UK for many years before the latter made it here. I guess it is down to the angle they court is pitched. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer [2] https://www.kensfriedchicken.co.uk/ https://www.kensfriedchicken.co.uk/

by memsom 2y ago

bigstrat2003 2y ago

I think that works for "Supermac", but it seems to me like "Mighty Mac" is a clear attempt to piggyback on the Big Mac name. I don't think that the argument you gave is very persuasive in that case. So yeah "Mac" might be a common thing in the culture, but there's also some shenanigans going on here too.

memsom 2y ago
It is probably a bit naughty, but Mighty Mac is no different than Big Mac really. Mac is an element of their name. I think they probably did it to see what McD's would do?
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Free publicity too. (Edit: on the other hand, I guess with the legal bills it must have been pretty expensive)

tivert 2y ago

> McDonald's have tries to claim for a long time that "Mac" is their exclusive trademarkable name. It is not. It is a word in a language that most of the people who eat in McDon;d's do not speak, but it is a really common prefix as previously discussed. I don't know EU law, but I don't buy this argument. Some very common words are trademarkable (e.g. Apple) in certain trade contexts. You seem to be arguing only a neologism can be trademarkable. And that doesn't touch on the "not used for chicken sandwiches" part, which seems to be a key part of the actual argument. > This would be a bit like opening a restaurant that sells some random fast food - let's say chicken, and then claiming no one else can call anything, for example "Kentucky" because your restaurant name makes use of it, you trademarked it, so therefore no one can use it. In the context of anything, or in the context of the fast food market? Because I think it would be legitimate to block a new fast food restaurant called "Kentucky Chicken" on trademark grounds.

memsom 2y ago
> I don't know EU law, but I don't buy this argument. Some very common words are trademarkable (e.g. Apple) in certain trade contexts. You seem to be arguing only a neologism can be trademarkable. Apple is not a great example[1] >And that doesn't touch on the "not used for chicken sandwiches" part, which seems to be a key part of the actual argument. From what I can tell, they are using that to prove that Mac can't be used to enforce a blanket ban - which is what McD's wanted. > In the context of anything, or in the context of the fast food market? Because I think it would be legitimate to block a new fast food restaurant called "Kentucky Chicken" on trademark grounds. Even if you sold chicken in Kentucky? I think it is not trademarkable IMO, because it is obvious that it will conflict with something in the past , preset or future. It is very antagonistic. Having said that, we locally have this restaurant "Ken's Fried Chicken"[2] and they have managed to ape KFC for 20+ years. We also had a video chain called "Blockbusters" and "Blockbuster" sued them out of business, despite the former existing in the UK for many years before the latter made it here. I guess it is down to the angle they court is pitched. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer [2] https://www.kensfriedchicken.co.uk/ https://www.kensfriedchicken.co.uk/