3 ms·
If the trademark is weakened, this opens the door to having it removed. It should not be trademarkable. It is like trademarking "X" (where X is some common work
by memsom 2y ago
If the trademark is weakened, this opens the door to having it removed. It should not be trademarkable. It is like trademarking "X" (where X is some common work or term) then going after anyone that uses the word "X" in their name or marketing, despite it being a regularly used word or phrase in that specific region or culture.
- jandrese 2y agoI don't think you will find many people who argue that "Big Mac" is a bad trademark. It's unique, domain specific, and well known. Honestly, this court seems to have made the wrong decision IMHO. While the Big Mac doesn't use chicken, it's still fundamentally in the food service domain, and allowing some other company to use "Big Mac" for a chicken sandwich seems like a bad call.
- rsynnott 2y agoIn practice the major consequence is that they can no longer prevent others from operating restaurants with 'mac' in the name (this all arose then Supermacs attempted to expand throughout Europe, and McDonalds stopped them on the basis of the Big Mac trademark).
- elthran 2y ago> While the Big Mac doesn't use chicken At least in the UK, they've sold a "Chicken Big Mac" as a special menu item twice now
- vel0city 2y ago> allowing some other company to use "Big Mac" for a chicken sandwich seems like a bad call Right? Imagine someone asks you what you'd like to eat. You say "I'll have a Big Mac." Would one assume you meant a chicken sandwich? Or a salad? No, people would think you're talking a burger, a specific kind of burger.