In the latest instalment of the ongoing trade mark dispute between Irish restaurant chain Supermac’s and fast-food giant McDonald’s, Supermac’s has succeeded in partially revoking an EU Trade Mark registration for “MC”.
Earlier this year, Supermac’s prevailed in its application to cancel McDonald’s EU Trade Mark for BIG MAC, as McDonald’s failed to file sufficient evidence to convince the EUIPO that it had made genuine use of the mark in relation to any of the goods and services covered by the registration.
In the latest decided proceedings, the key issue was whether use of “MC” in combination with other words constituted use of the mark as registered.
The EUIPO was satisfied that McDonald’s had used certain terms featuring “MC” in the EU. These included “McDONALD’S” and the names for a variety of food products, such as “McNUGGETS”, “McFISH”, “McFLURRY”, and “BIG MAC”.
When a mark is used in combination with other elements, the issue is whether such use alters its distinctive character. If it does, it does not constitute use of the mark as registered.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the EUIPO held that the addition of DONALD’S did alter the distinctive character of “MC”. It noted that the term DONALD’S is not descriptive or devoid of distinctive character, and nor was it used as an independent mark.
The EUIPO also considered that the addition of “FLURRY” and the “A” in “BIG MAC”, significantly altered the distinctive character of “MC”.
In the case of McRib, McMuffin, McToast, McFish, McWrap and McNuggets, the EUIPO was satisfied that the terms were descriptive of goods covered by the mark’s specification. As a result, those terms did not alter the distinctive character of “MC” and showed use of the mark as registered.
Ultimately, the EUIPO accepted that “MC” had been used in relation to goods in Class 29 - Chicken nuggets and Class 30 - Edible sandwiches, meat sandwiches, pork sandwiches, fish sandwiches, and chicken sandwiches.
The EUIPO’s decision substantially narrowed the range of goods and services covered by the “MC” mark and (subject to appeal) represents a significant, if not complete, victory for Supermac’s.
The decision also provides a useful illustration of the way the EUIPO approaches the validity of marks that have only been used in combination with other words or features – where the additional features comprise purely descriptive terms,
It remains to be seen, however, the extent to which the decision will help determine the final outcome of the dispute between McDonald’s and Supermac’s. The BIG MAC decision has already been appealed and more decisions will no doubt follow from the EUIPO.
CANCELLATION No 14 787 C (REVOCATION) - Supermac's (Holdings) Ltd v McDonald's International Property Company, Ltd.
Charlotte Duly writes for Intellectual Property Magazine on the implications of the Court of Appeal’s decision in SkyKick on both bad faith and specification drafting
Trademark law was dominated by SkyKick in 2020 and it was in the spotlight again in 2021 following a Court of Appeal judgment in July.
Nick White writes for Intellectual Property Magazine on the ever-expanding role of licensed content within the video gaming industry
Consumers’ unwitting assumptions: A [wh]iskey business in brand competition
Olivia and Anna look at the Liverpool Gin Distillery Ltd v Sazerac Brands LLC case and the question of 'indirect confusion'
Mark Hill and Lara Haidar write for The Legal 500 Country Comparative Guide on Intellectual Property in the United Arab Emirates
An overview of the latest intellectual property laws and regulations applicable in United Arab Emirates.
Charlotte Duly quoted by Intellectual Property Magazine on the implications of the Court of Appeal's decision in Sky Ltd & Ors v SkyKick, UK Ltd & Anor
The Court of Appeal offered clarification on bad faith trade marks, after issuing a decision in Sky Ltd & Ors v SkyKick, UK Ltd & Anor.
Blue Sky Linking
Daniel looks at Sky's recent success in obtaining interim protection from infringement of their broadcast rights
Mary Bagnall writes for Intellectual Property Magazine on the government’s consultation document on the future regime for exhaustion of UK IP rights
The UK government has published its consultation document on the future regime for exhaustion of UK IP rights.
Bullfighting ... as a copyright work?
Joint and several liability for IP infringement - Directors beware
Olivia takes an in-depth look at the recent Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed case in the Court of Appeal
Brexit: Trade Marks and Designs
Charlotte outlines all you need to know before the next post-Brexit deadline on trade marks and designs
Anna Sowerby writes for The Fashion Law on the new collaborative approach being taken by luxury brands and online platforms to fight fakes
Online platforms are now under pressure to be more proactive in their approach to tackling the ever-escalating issue of counterfeit goods.
Antiques Trade Gazette and eprivateclient cover this firm's hire of art and luxury asset specialist Chris Haywood in Dubai
Chris joins the firm as a Senior Associate in the Dubai office.
Pfizer, Ted Danson and the Olympic Vaccine Solution
#cake – a trial by social media
Brexit and intellectual property: Gibraltar, the Isle of Man and
Charlotte looks at where else trade mark and design protection may be required following Brexit.
Diversification of landed estates – a trade mark lawyer’s advice...
Mary looks at the diversification of landed estates and offers her expert advice from a trade mark perspective
Charlotte Duly writes for the Trademark Lawyer Magazine on the legal issues that tribute bands face when selecting a name
Picking a name for a tribute act that makes it clear what they offer whilst avoiding issues with the actual band can be a challenge.
Brexit and Intellectual Property: one month on
Charlotte looks at the impact of Brexit on intellectual property one month on
The Tricky Issue of Joint Authorship in Copyright Works
Where more than one person creates a work, it can be deemed ‘joint authorship’ and each has the same rights as a sole author would.