[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "
French flags are hung at a McDonald's fast food restaurant. on the Champs-Élysée in Paris, France, Thursday, June 28, 2018. Photographer: Christophe Morin / Bloomberg© 2018 Bloomberg Finance LP
McDonald's recently lost its brand battle in Europe against the Big Mac in Europe. The European Union's Intellectual Property Office has ruled in favor of Supermac's, an Irish restaurant chain, thereby limiting McDonald's brand on its Bigger. Mac burger in the EU.
The decision took effect immediately, but McDonald's can still appeal the decision. The decision was motivated by the fact that McDonald's did not use the mark in accordance with EU law. Supermac brought the case to the regulator two years ago, accusing McDonald's of "brand intimidation." This is not the first time that McDonald's has to defend its brands.
In terms of franchising, trademarks are one of the main advantages franchisers offer to franchisees. It is therefore essential to protect them from misuse. With the world's expanding markets and tense competition, these legal issues are predictable. Laws vary from one country to another, but most legal authorities consider some basic principles. Franchisors must be proactive in planning and defending their brands. The following implications provide points to consider.
There should be no confusion among consumers about trademarks
Over the years, McDonald's has been very vigilant in protecting its brands, including the "Mc" or "Mac" prefix. In the European Union case, McDonald's claimed that Supermac was too close to its trademark burger and that it would confuse consumers. Supermac was planning to expand outside of Ireland. McDonald's argument was that the existence of continental "Supermac" would create confusion for customers, which would have an impact on its brand.
The brand must match the type of business
A Singaporean court rejected McDonald's application to use the Mc or Mac prefix in favor of a small company, Future Enterprises Private Ltd., which had requested the registration of "Mac" Chocolate "," Mac Tea "and" Mac Noodle "as registered trademarks of their hot chocolate. mix, instant tea and instant noodle products. The court unanimously decided that the use of prefixes would not create confusion or confusion. The type of business was taken into account in the decision because Future Enterprises Private Ltd., supplied packaged goods to supermarkets and did not work in the catering business.
In another case, McDonald's successfully challenged the use of the "McBagel" and "McPretzel" prefixes by a party selling these products at the wholesale and food service level, which would have confused consumers.
The type of menu becomes an important consideration in trademark protection
In 1996, McDonald's banned the use of the trademark "McIndians" in a restaurant serving Indian dishes, although their menu includes hamburgers, fried chicken and fries. In another case, McDonald's failed to obtain exclusivity for another similar business name, "McChina", the restaurant serving only Chinese dishes. In 2009, a chain of Malaysian restaurants got the right to use the name "McCurry" at the end of an eight-year legal battle. The Court of Appeal noted that the McCurry restaurant served Malaysian and Indian dishes very different from McDonald's dishes.
The date of registration of the mark and its actual operation are important considerations
The mere fact of registering a trademark does not justify protection, as proof of the conduct of the business is important. Opening an office in a region or country does not meet this requirement. The date of recording is also an important factor. McDonald's is fighting against the trademark counterfeiting of "Chicken Licken", a chain of restaurants in South Africa. The appeal called for the cancellation of McDonald's rights for non-use of the mark in the country. McDonald's, which first registered the brand in 1968, won after providing evidence of familiarity, reputation and local support.
McDonald's registered the brand in the Philippines in 1985 and won a key decision to protect its "Big Mac" brand from counterfeiting. Local company L.C. Big Mak Burger tried in 1988 to register a trademark for the sale of hamburger under the name "Big Mak". McDonald filed a contempt lawsuit against the company for defying the court's earlier decision to ban the use of the "Big Mak" trademark. rejected by the court.
">
French flags are hung at a McDonald's fast food restaurant. on the Champs-Élysée in Paris, France, Thursday, June 28, 2018. Photographer: Christophe Morin / Bloomberg© 2018 Bloomberg Finance LP
McDonald's recently lost its brand battle in Europe against the Big Mac in Europe. The European Union's Intellectual Property Office has ruled in favor of Supermac's, an Irish restaurant chain, thereby limiting McDonald's brand on its Bigger. Mac burger in the EU.
The decision took effect immediately, but McDonald's can still appeal the decision. The decision was motivated by the fact that McDonald's did not use the mark in accordance with EU law. Supermac brought the case to the regulator two years ago, accusing McDonald's of "brand harbadment". This is not the first time that McDonald's has to defend its brands.
In terms of franchising, trademarks are one of the main advantages franchisers offer to franchisees. It is therefore essential to protect them from misuse. With the world's expanding markets and tense competition, these legal issues are predictable. Laws vary from one country to another, but most legal authorities consider some basic principles. Franchisors must be proactive in planning and defending their brands. The following implications provide points to consider.
There should be no confusion among consumers about trademarks
Over the years, McDonald's has been very vigilant in protecting its brands, including the "Mc" or "Mac" prefix. In the European Union case, McDonald's claimed that Supermac was too close to its trademark burger and that it would confuse consumers. Supermac was planning to expand outside of Ireland. McDonald's argument was that the existence of continental "Supermac" would create confusion for customers, which would have an impact on its brand.
The brand must match the type of business
A Singaporean court rejected McDonald's application to use the Mc or Mac prefix in favor of a small company, Future Enterprises Private Ltd., which had requested the registration of "Mac" Chocolate "," Mac Tea "and" Mac Noodle "as registered trademarks of their hot chocolate. mix, instant tea and instant noodle products. The court unanimously decided that the use of prefixes would not create confusion or confusion. The type of business was taken into account in the decision because Future Enterprises Private Ltd., supplied packaged goods to supermarkets and did not work in the catering business.
In another case, McDonald's successfully challenged the use of the "McBagel" and "McPretzel" prefixes by a party selling these products at the wholesale and food service level, which would have confused consumers.
The type of menu becomes an important consideration in trademark protection
In 1996, McDonald's banned the use of the trademark "McIndians" in a restaurant serving Indian dishes, although their menu includes hamburgers, fried chicken and fries. In another case, McDonald's failed to obtain exclusivity for another similar business name, "McChina", the restaurant serving only Chinese dishes. In 2009, a chain of Malaysian restaurants got the right to use the name "McCurry" at the end of an eight-year legal battle. The Court of Appeal noted that the McCurry restaurant served Malaysian and Indian dishes very different from McDonald's dishes.
The date of registration of the mark and its actual operation are important considerations
The mere fact of registering a trademark does not justify protection, as proof of the conduct of the business is important. Opening an office in a region or country does not meet this requirement. The date of recording is also an important factor. McDonald's is fighting against the trademark counterfeiting of "Chicken Licken", a chain of restaurants in South Africa. The appeal called for the cancellation of McDonald's rights for non-use of the mark in the country. McDonald's, which first registered the brand in 1968, won after providing evidence of familiarity, reputation and local support.
McDonald's registered the brand in the Philippines in 1985 and won a key decision to protect its "Big Mac" brand from counterfeiting. Local company L.C. Big Mak Burger tried in 1988 to register a trademark for the sale of hamburger under the name "Big Mak". McDonald filed a contempt lawsuit against the company for defying the court's earlier decision to ban the use of the "Big Mak" trademark. rejected by the court.
