McDonald's Loses 'Big Mac' Trademark in European Union
apnews.com
apnews.com
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.
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.
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.
It's tough because Mac is a common name part and (maybe less common now) nickname, and yet it seems clear that Supermac's was created with the intention of riding McDonald's coattails. It definitely seemed so in the 80s when, I think, Galway didn't have a McDonald's and Dublin and Cork did.
For me, the really perplexing thing is that there is a market for Supermac's outside of Ireland. Then again, their food quality might be a lot better than it was years ago, and McDonald's quality has diminished. I haven't had Supermac's in at least 25 years.
Not sure where you're getting that from -- it's quite the opposite.
McDonald's quarter pounders used to be made from frozen, and all the popular sandwiches would sit around pre-made under heat lamps until somebody ordered one.
Now quarter pounders are made from fresh beef, and all sandwiches are made to order, so they're not sitting around drying up.
Not to mention the McCrispy is a real chicken sandwich now, a million times better than the old McChicken "chicken patty".
McDonald's certainly isn't gourmet or anything, but the quality of their beef and chicken sandwiches have most definitely improved from what they used to be.
(This is the case in the US at least.)
You don't know what you're talking about. It's fine if you don't like McD's, but don't just make things up to justify it.
Also I already know what you’re saying is true, doesn’t change the fact the food has something off about it now. I don’t recall people having midnight black shits and stomach pain from eating McDonald’s in the 90s.
I also don’t think this issue is exclusive to McDonalds though. In America, something is just not right with the food supply chains.
You love data, so go checkout the colon cancer rates in America. It’s wild.
Yes, i also noticed a beef farm near every McDonald. /s
Really not sure what your point is, to be honest? They stopped using frozen patties for them. Do you use a different definition for fresh vs. frozen meat?
Yes you could. My understanding from it is that a trademark is only valid for a certain category of "products", which also applies to company names. For example, if you make a company that sell apple juice, and you choose to call it "Apple", because you're not selling the same category of products as "Apple" which sells computers, it's allowed.
I would find strange that you could call a company selling computers "MacBook" though, but technically it's a shop vs a computer, so not the same kind of thing.
And I think this article is confusing, because it's not "Big Mac" that this restaurant is called. It's "Supermac", which isn't exactly the trademarked name. Maybe it would have been different for a "Big Mac" hamburger restaurant.
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.
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".
(it wasn't supermac trying to "steal a trademark", but mcdonald trying to use an overly large trademark to stiffle competition)
On 11 April 2017, Supermac filed an application for revocation with EUIPO in respect of the EU trade mark in respect of the word sign BIG MAC.
> The dispute erupted when Supermac’s applied to register its company name in the EU as it drew up expansion plans. McDonald’s objected, saying consumers would be confused because it already trademarked the Big Mac name. > Supermac’s filed a 2017 request with the EU’s Intellectual Property Office to revoke McDonald’s Big Mac trademark registration, saying the U.S. company couldn’t prove that it had used the name for certain categories that aren’t specifically related to the burger over five years.
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsession...
Articles often get specialized knowledge like law wrong, but maybe someone can link to McDonald’s objection to a Supermac trademark application to validate the article.
No it's not.
What happens if I create a fake meat burger (Impossible burger, etc) and call it Big Mac?
That's one of the problems with this ruling.
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;jsession...
It was also a movie I think.
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.
because it is. McDonald's has lost the trademark for Big Mac, specifically in regard to chicken sandwiches. Beef hamburgers are unaffected.
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.
This doesn't look anything like a Big Mac: https://supermacs.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Supermacs-Mi...
supermac: https://supermacs.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Supermacs-Mi...
big mac: 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"?
> 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.
I have an opinion - the EU really doesn't like dominating American companies. The history pattern here is very clear.
This part of the trademark was also challenged along with the other goods/services, but McDonald's provided satisfactory evidence of use of the mark.
The full judgment: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsession...
I'm confused. Does this mean that McDonald's still has the trademark for hamburgers, and that this lawsuit was specifically about striking down the trademark in other, less important categories?
They have lost it for the "Chicken Big Mac" and in relation to opening/operating restaurants. I think the original disagreement was due to McDonald's blocking the Supermac's brands expanding outside of Ireland, their reasoning being that customers would be confused between the Big Mac and Supermac's. Supermac's defense was that McDonald's hadn't exercised their Big Mac trademark with respect to operating a restaurant for over 5 years, hence now they've lost it, opening the door for Supermac's to expand into the rest of the EU.
https://api.supermacs.ie//uploads/628d16681e300/medium-628d1...
Two 'Irish Beef' patties with 'Burger Sauce'. Plus you can get curry fries, nice.
'Irish beef' here refers to the country of origin. This is a hangover from the BSE crisis, when people became very edgy about British beef. Restaurants nearly always say where beef came from ever since.
Frankly I think that confidence has been repaid over the long term, but at the same time I have only eaten beef or lamb a handful of times a year since the late nineties, even though whatever risk I carry of some future diagnosis is entirely to do with having been alive and eaten beef before 1989!
> The Irish company doesn’t sell a sandwich called the Big Mac but does have one called the Mighty Mac with the same ingredients.
So it sounds like they do sell beef burgers.
Unless the EU is a bizarre place, like the land of Rand McNally, where chicken and beef are considered the same ingredient.
Compare:
https://supermacs.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Supermacs-Mi...
https://s7d1.scene7.com/is/image/mcdonalds/Header_BigMac_832...
And really? You don't see very heavy resemblance between these two burgers? The only major difference I'm seeing is McDonad's have pickles and a slightly different sauce.
Go look at a Double Double at In-n-Out. Does it have a middle bun?
Go look at a Double Meat Whataburger. Does it have a middle bun?
Go look at a Dave's Double at Wendy's. Does it have a middle bun?
Go look at any burger at Culver's. All of them are doubles. Do they have a middle bun?
Go look at a SuperSONIC Double Cheeseburger. Does it have a middle bun?
Go look at a Double Famous Star at Carl's Jr. Does it have a middle bun?
Go look at a Double Cheeseburger at McDonald's. Does it have a middle bun?
The middle bun is a massive differentiator for a Big Mac versus a double cheeseburger. How many restaurants have a double burger with a middle bun named "$something Mac"? I can't seem to name any despite you suggesting its incredibly common and generic.
Looks like wordpress vs cdn.
Do they still have the trademark, or is BIG MAC up for grabs for anyone?
What if I called my laptop Macaroni, and referred to it as Mac?
> ...
> Supermac’s filed a 2017 request with the EU’s Intellectual Property Office to revoke McDonald’s Big Mac trademark registration, saying the U.S. company couldn’t prove that it had used the name for certain categories that aren’t specifically related to the burger over five years. That’s the window of time in Europe that a trademark has to be used before it can be taken away.
I am I reading this right? They're revoking the Big Mac (hamburger) trademark because it wasn't also used for chicken sandwiches?
That seems kind of nonsensical to me. I assume McDonald's sells Big Mac (hamburgers) in Europe.
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.
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.
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 [2] https://www.kensfriedchicken.co.uk/
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.
At least in the UK, they've sold a "Chicken Big Mac" as a special menu item twice now
"connection with chicken sandwiches, food made from poultry products or services associated with operating fast-food, drive-through or take-out restaurants"
They can't use a trademark on a food product and then not allow someone to make a POS system with Big Mac in the name.