top of page

The European Trademark Office Cancels McDonald's "Big Mac" Trademark

susancrockett
Sep 30, 2020
2 min read

The European Trademark Office cancelled McDonald's European "Big Mac" trademark in its entirety after a legal challenge by the Irish restaurant chain Supermac's.


Supermac's, founded in 1978, has more than 100 restaurants in Ireland.  The Irish company is named after its founder who earned the nickname "Supermac" while playing football as a kid.  Supermac's wanted to expand into the rest of Europe, and though the company has a trademark in Ireland, it did not have a European trademark.  


In 2015, Supermac's filed for a European wide trademark, but it was objected to by McDonalds, McDonalds claiming that the branding of Supermac's was too similar to its "Big Mac" trademark.  You see - the "Big Mac" registration in Europe is both for food and restaurant services.  This meant that McDonalds could call a restaurant "Big Mac"and as a result of that, it was able to argue successfully that if the Supermac's name was successfully trademarked, it could cause confusion for consumers.  Of interest, in the 2015 dispute between the two companies, McDonalds introduced survey evidence.  


In 2017, Supermac's tried again, which led to a new objection from McDonald's.  In order to fight that ruling, Supermac's had to formally submit a request to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to cancel McDonald's trademark for "Big Mac" in its entirety, arguing that it was not being put to genuine use. 


McDonald's lawyers provided website printouts, examples of advertisements and packaging, signed affidavits from three executives, and a Wikipedia page printout as evidence that it sells Big Macs in Europe.


The EUIPO ruled that "the evidence is insufficient to establish genuine use of the trademark."  In particular, they said that records from McDonald's employees were insufficient and not independent, and that Wikipedia pages are not reliable sources of information.  The ruling expressly said affidavits from the parties are "generally given less weight than independent evidence."  Basically, McDonald's evidence was self-serving.  Had McDonald's submitted survey evidence as they did in the 2015 dispute, the outcome might have been different.  Furthermore, all of McDonald's evidence referred to the food and none of the evidence referred to restaurant services(i.e. using "Big Mac" for restaurants and not just burgers).  McDonalds has of course appealed the ruling.


The judgment will allows Supermac's to file for its European trademark and finally expand into the rest of Europe.  The ruling also had the unintended consequence of allowing Supermac's to use the "big mac" trademark on any food for sale.  


There are several lessons to be learned from this ruling:

1.    Don't overreach when you file for trademarks, for example, including goods and services that you don't actually sell.  

2.    Know the evidentiary rules when you litigate.

3.    The big guys don't always win!

Susan L. Crockett, Esq.


By Crockett & Crockett of Crockett & Crockett posted on Monday, February 11, 2019.


For more information:



Recent Posts

See All

2 Comments


laurasanms311989
Aug 27

Bài của bạn trình bày ngắn gọn mà dễ nắm, mình đọc liền một lượt là hiểu, cảm ơn bạn đã chia sẻ để mọi người có thêm chỗ tham khảo. Mình cũng có thói quen xem thống kê XSMB mỗi ngày, nhưng hồi trước phải lục nhiều nguồn khác nhau nên mất công và hay bị rối. Về sau mình tự gom lại cho tiện, kiểu lưu một chỗ để lúc cần đối chiếu nhanh thì mở ra xem, mình hay để trên soicau247.com cho dễ theo dõi. Bạn nào cũng thích cập nhật số liệu theo ngày như mình thì có thể xem thử, mình để đường dẫn ở đây cho tiện: https://soicau247.com/truc-tiep-ket-qua-xo-so-mega-6-45-vietlott.html.

Like

John Kelvin
Aug 13

This is a classic case of a big brand using trademark law as a blocker rather than a genuine protection tool. Supermac's held their ground and it paid off.

It is a reminder that even the most recognised names in the world can lose credibility when they cannot back up their claims with genuine use. Much like how Wikipedia page creators for actors verify real public presence before building a page, trademark offices now expect the same level of proof from brands holding registrations.

David beat Goliath on this one.

Like
bottom of page