https://www.aol.com/article/finance/201 ... /23643419/


Huh!!! Can this be for real?

Yup, it is indeed WarRI1! Though it does seem bizarre, particularly when the ruling says that McDonald's had "not proven genuine use" of the trademark name in the five years prior to the case being lodged in 2017 . This is the latest episode in a battle going back years, but McDonald's are sure to appeal.

I guess by "use" they don't mean the same thing as us. Maybe no advert for the Big Mac specifically for 5 years ?

I wonder if that Irish chain hired Nathan Fielder as a consultant.

I think this is not the whole story.

The article mentions that Supermac never sold a product with the name Big Mac. So IMHO they are not going to be able to claim fair use now to the name Big Mac.

However, the article also mentions that McDonald's had just used the similarity of the two names to block Supermac’s international expansion plans.

My guess is that MacDonalds has been claiming every combination of Mac-* you can think of, and that those claims were revoked.

After all, the article does say: "stops bigger companies from "trademark bullying" by not allowing them to hoard trademarks without using them."

But that would make for far less effective click bait.

petertenthije wrote:

I think this is not the whole story.

I think you're right.

petertenthije wrote:

So IMHO they are not going to be able to claim fair use now to the name Big Mac.

From the article:

The ruling also allows the Irishchain to use the "Big Mac" name on any food items it will sell.

So, yes, Supermac can use Big Mac as it sees fit.

petertenthije wrote:

the article also mentions that McDonald's had just used the similarity of the two names to block Supermac’s international expansion plans.

Actually, it's Supermac that said that, as reported in the article, not the court.

petertenthije wrote:

After all, the article does say: "stops bigger companies from "trademark bullying" by not allowing them to hoard trademarks without using them."

Again, that is Supermac's claim, and not the court's.

This article indicates that the fight may have been over The SnackBox.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -supermacs

“They trademarked the SnackBox, which is one of Supermac’s most popular products, even though the product is not actually offered by them,” said McDonagh. “The EU is basically saying either use it or lose it.”

I'm on board with that. If McDonald's received a trademark, they should use it, within a reasonable amount of time, or have to give it up.

Without reading the filing or the ruling, or McDonald's response, beyond the obvious intent to appeal, I've no idea how the term "Big Mac" got involved with "SnackBox".

I guess naming their flagship sandwich "Big Mac" isn't enough to prove that McDonald's was actually putting the trademark to "genuine use"?

From Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mcdo ... SKCN1P92JA

McDonald’s, which sells its flagship “Big Mac” burgers internationally, submitted printouts of European websites as evidence, as well as posters, packaging, and affidavits from company representatives attesting to “Big Mac” sales in Europe.

The EUIPO said the affidavits from McDonald’s needed to be supported by other types of evidence, and that the websites and other promotional materials did not provide that support.

From the website printouts “it could not be concluded whether, or how, a purchase could be made or an order could be placed,” the EUIPO said. “Even if the websites provided such an option, there is no information of a single order being placed.”

That's ridiculous. It seems to me the EUIPO is using some very strange definitions.

Proves once again what a joke EU institutions are. Nothing new here. BRB, filing a claim for the Colonel Sanders trademark. I'm sure I can find a real Colonel Sanders somewhere in Britain and some moronic eurocrat who agrees with me!

This is a joke. The whole bloody world knows what a Big Mac is, so for the EUIPO to say that McDonald's can't prove that the term Big Mac is being used by McDonald's is preposterous!

aviationaware wrote:

Proves once again what a joke EU institutions are. Nothing new here. BRB, filing a claim for the Colonel Sanders trademark. I'm sure I can find a real Colonel Sanders somewhere in Britain and some moronic eurocrat who agrees with me!

Yeah, it's all SO much better in the US!
You're right.

No Tax On Rotax

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

This is a joke. The whole bloody world knows what a Big Mac is, so for the EUIPO to say that McDonald's can't prove that the term Big Mac is being used by McDonald's is preposterous!

Wasn't about the 'big mac' trademark so the joke's on you and the piss poor 'journalism'/reporting from US media outlets. The spat was over a trademark McDonalds holds but does not use. When did you last buy a McDonalds 'Snackbox' or even see it for sale?

Corporations hoover up words as trademarks, as they are free to. However, to keep a trademark, you must demonstrate you actually use it and have legal claim to it. McDonalds failed to do so with 'SnackBox' and rightly lost.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

This is a joke. The whole bloody world knows what a Big Mac is, so for the EUIPO to say that McDonald's can't prove that the term Big Mac is being used by McDonald's is preposterous!

Do they, here are some burgers that look like a Big Mac but aren't made by McDonalds.

Burger King Big King



Hesburger Double Burger

I've read another interpretation of the ruling, saying that McDonald's has taken a trademark for Big Mac the burger, but also a range of products called Big Mac. They have not sold any of these other products, that's why it was ruled that they were abusing the trademark.

The Big King in France looks like this, no central bun :

Aesma wrote:

I've read another interpretation of the ruling, saying that McDonald's has taken a trademark for Big Mac the burger, but also a range of products called Big Mac. They have not sold any of these other products, that's why it was ruled that they were abusing the trademark.

It's in the Irish Times.

They had a trademark for Big Mac including not just the product, but also as a name for a restaurant chain.

I'm pretty sure the you don't use it, you lose it ruling refers to Big Mac as a restaurant name, not the product (which was the whole reason McD tried to block Supermac in the first place).

Aesma wrote:

The Big King in France looks like this, no central bun :

Perhaps they've gone away from it, found this menu on the net:

Braybuddy wrote:

Yup, it is indeed WarRI1! Though it does seem bizarre, particularly when the ruling says that McDonald's had "not proven genuine use" of the trademark name in the five years prior to the case being lodged in 2017 . This is the latest episode in a battle going back years, but McDonald's are sure to appeal.

I guess eventually the customers will pay for this bizarre court case as usual one way or another.

trpmb6 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The Big King in France looks like this, no central bun :

Perhaps they've gone away from it, found this menu on the net:

Royal with cheese? So, is that like a Quater Pounder with cheese? Guess it’s ‘cause you guys have the metric system.

ChrisKen wrote:

Wasn't about the 'big mac' trademark so the joke's on you and the piss poor 'journalism'/reporting from US media outlets. The spat was over a trademark McDonalds holds but does not use. When did you last buy a McDonalds 'Snackbox' or even see it for sale?

Last I heard, Reuters is British.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mcdo ... SKCN1P92JA

McDonald’s, which sells its flagship “Big Mac” burgers internationally, submitted printouts of European websites as evidence, as well as posters, packaging, and affidavits from company representatives attesting to “Big Mac” sales in Europe.

The EUIPO said the affidavits from McDonald’s needed to be supported by other types of evidence, and that the websites and other promotional materials did not provide that support.

From the website printouts “it could not be concluded whether, or how, a purchase could be made or an order could be placed,” the EUIPO said. “Even if the websites provided such an option, there is no information of a single order being placed.”

There are some wildly varying interpretations of English in this thread.

Aesma wrote:

I guess by "use" they don't mean the same thing as us. Maybe no advert for the Big Mac specifically for 5 years ?

AFAIK It's all about the trademark "BIG MAC" (thus all capitals) and not about the trademark "Big Mac" (as advertised by McDonald's). McDonald's had the trademark "BIG MAC" and various other derivatives of "Big Mac". However, McDonald's never used "BIG MAC" and the other derivatives except "Big Mac". Given that front and typeface can be attributes of a trademark, "BIG MAC" can be something totally different than "Big Mac" in trademark world.

"Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. 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 their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds."

ACDC8 wrote:

Royal with cheese? So, is that like a Quater Pounder with cheese? Guess it’s ‘cause you guys have the metric system.

Don't forget that some of our younger readers weren't even born when Pulp Fiction first brought that to our attention.
I'm just disappointed they've dropped the "e"; a "Royal Cheese" is just so...... London; bring back the "Royale with cheese", s'il vous plait.
Then again, you are unlikely to get very far looking for "cheese" in any French supermarché. Or potatoes, or fish. Or for that matter, French Fries....

In 2008, Entertainment Weekly declared, "You'd be hard-pressed, by now, to name a moment from Quentin Tarantino's film that isn't iconic."
Jules and Vincent's "Royale with Cheese" dialogue became one of the most famous.

There was never a "e" as that would be the feminine version of the word, and a hamburger is masculine so it doesn't work.

Apparently US people dealing with French have trouble with the silent "e" we have in many words, to the point they add non existent "e" to words.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

Royal with cheese? So, is that like a Quater Pounder with cheese? Guess it’s ‘cause you guys have the metric system.

Don't forget that some of our younger readers weren't even born when Pulp Fiction first brought that to our attention.
I'm just disappointed they've dropped the "e"; a "Royal Cheese" is just so...... London; bring back the "Royale with cheese", s'il vous plait.
Then again, you are unlikely to get very far looking for "cheese" in any French supermarché. Or potatoes, or fish. Or for that matter, French Fries....

In 2008, Entertainment Weekly declared, "You'd be hard-pressed, by now, to name a moment from Quentin Tarantino's film that isn't iconic."
Jules and Vincent's "Royale with Cheese" dialogue became one of the most famous.

LOL thats all good.

I prefer my cheeseburgers from Big Kahuna anyways. It truly is the cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast

mham001 wrote:

Last I heard, Reuters is British.

Heard incorrectly then, Canadians took it over a decade ago. See Thomson Reuters.

Aesma wrote:

There was never a "e" as that would be the feminine version of the word, and a hamburger is masculine so it doesn't work.

Apparently US people dealing with French have trouble with the silent "e" we have in many words, to the point they add non existent "e" to words.

Whilst I appreciate your input regarding the technicalities of the French language, if McDonalds chooses to label it's burger "McRoyale" (with an "e"), as they do in some countries, then that is how it is spelled. Likewise, if they use the name "with cheese", it doesn't matter overly that it should be "avec fromage" according to French grammar.

As evidenced by the image, today in France (and indeed Belgium, Portugal and Cyprus) it is known as Royal Cheese, which kinda destroys the idea it is exclusively French and as such respects the French language.
Equally of interest to me, is whether it was always known as a Royal Cheese in France. Perhaps when Quentin Tarrantino wrote Pulp Fiction back in 1994, it did indeed feature a superfluous "e"?
It is not unknown for locals everywhere to insist that multi-nationals adapt their trademarks over time to reflect local culture and conventions. Even Brits argue with Americans over the correct spelling of color, and whether the burger we are discussing has any right to be described as a sandwich.

I'm guessing Casino Royale (in it's many forms) make you spit feathers too?