Hacker News Reader

Comment by jandrese | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com