Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

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

[2] https://supermacs.ie/supermacs-food/

View on HN

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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".

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.

It might not be a trademark violation, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. There are other legal avenues McDonald’s could use. The absence of a registered TM doesn’t mean you can’t do anything about someone blatantly passing off [0] their product as yours (or as being officially associated with you), for example. I’m not a lawyer but I doubt you’d have a quiet life if you called your restaurant Big Mac.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

Perhaps more like a digital bookstore called Power Books, originally owned by John Power, and Apple claiming that it conflicts with Apple trademarks Apple Books and their somewhat defunct PowerBook trademark.

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.

> and McDonald's quality has diminished

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.)

They don't taste as good.

I'm quite sure that's because your taste has improved. It says much more about you than it does about McD's.

The buns are usually dried out and the kitchens look perpetually understaffed and honestly chaotic. The stores look dirty. The fries are often cold. I honestly couldn't tell you what the patty tastes like in isolation from all that.

None of that even makes any sense. Buns are kept wrapped in plastic, you know the same as every supermarket, until they're used. Whatever you think of staffing or chaos has nothing to do with the taste of the food, nor does whatever you mean by it "looking dirty". Fries sit below a heat lamp and by definition can't be cold unless you're waiting 10 minutes to eat them, which is going to be the case with all fries.

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.

Yup, all in my head.

> Now quarter pounders are made from fresh beef

Yes, i also noticed a beef farm near every McDonald. /s

Well of course, just like there's a beef farm next to every supermarket. /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?

lol. You are an ad for fucking McDonald’s.

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.

> 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.

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.

I think we nerds often fall into the trap of thinking that there must be some meta law that says "laws must treat similar things similarly" but there's no such provision in the law of any land that I know of. You're right that your analogous case seems implausible. It's irrelevant though.

And to add to that : it was a fight started by mcdonald to impede supermac, not the other way around

(it wasn't supermac trying to "steal a trademark", but mcdonald trying to use an overly large trademark to stiffle competition)

Not according to the Judgment.

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.

From the article:

> 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.

While the article mentioned that I am deferring to the Court’s Judgment that provides the history of the dispute beginning with Supermac filing the revocation:

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.

It's a counter suit, McDonald sued them for trademark infrigement, Supermac defense was to straight up go after said trademark.

Not according to the Court, can you link to the alleged lawsuit?

This is only in response to McDonald's raised an objection to Supermac registering their trademark in the EU

> This ruling essentially says: "Big Mac" is only protected for selling beef sandwiches...that's fine.

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.

Typically, if there's a significant risk of confusing the two products, using the name would be a trademark infringement.

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;jsession...

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.

Nixing the chewy, slimy, limp, cooked pickle slices would be an improvement but I guess RealMickyD's never dogfooded their own slop.

Coming to America was an interesting treatise on American corporate culture.

It was also a movie I think.

Second best documentary ever made, after Idiocracy.

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.

> 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.

>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.

> 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.

> 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-Mi...

you're being sarcastic, surely?

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"?

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

is dilution even a tort in the eu tho

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com