Hacker News Reader

Comment by tivert | Hacker News Reader

> The EU General Court said in its judgment that the U.S. fast food giant failed to prove that it was genuinely using the Big Mac label over a five-year period for chicken sandwiches, poultry products or restaurants.

> ...

> 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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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?

Free publicity too. (Edit: on the other hand, I guess with the legal bills it must have been pretty expensive)

> 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.

> 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 [2] https://www.kensfriedchicken.co.uk/

I think it's saying that McDonalds has lost the "Big Mac" trademark in relation to chicken sandwiches. Presumably they still retain it for beef sandwiches.

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.

I 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.

In 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).

> 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

> 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.

If I understand correctly it seems like this only applies to chicken/poultry sandwiches since it's supposedly a different product category.

No. They get to keep trademark protection for beef sandwiches but not for chicken sandwiches and crucially not for operating restaurants.

They claimed their trademark included more than just hamburgers.

"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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com