PARTIES:
- McDonald’s
- Supermac’s
NEWS-: In the recent timeline we have seen that the trademark “Big Mac” has been taken away from the McDonald’s as it lost a European Union legal battle and this ruling is pronounced by the EU General Court.
McDonald’s, the giant of the fast food industry, recently faced a significant challenge from Supermac’s, a smaller but popular Irish chain known for its fish & chips and burgers. Supermac’s filed a complaint to limit McDonald’s trademark rights in the European Union. The Irish chain argued that McDonald’s extensive trademark protections were preventing its own expansion across Europe. By challenging these protections, Supermac’s aimed to remove the obstacles set by the fast food giant and open the door for its own growth and success on the continent.
We all might wonder that how even the Supermac did thought of competing with such popular trademark, feels like Supermac was trying to play round and the game was in general in hand of the McDonalds, but it is a very well said that judiciary is independent from all the interference it is supreme which is unbiased and can strike down any power with the power of law.
Well the court prove its power same in the case McDonald’s inspite of being such a popularly known mark and brand, it has to lose the exclusive right of it’s from the mark “BIG MAC”, but for the safer side McDonalds can still access BIG MAC but along it others as well can, till the time the McDonalds appeal the judgement of EU general court.
Supermac’s contended in court that McDonald’s was not genuinely utilizing its Big Mac trademark for products and services such as chicken burgers, drive-through services, and takeaway options. They claimed that McDonald’s failed to meet the requirement for continuous use of the trademark in these specific areas. According to EU trademark law, a company must actively use its trademark within a five-year period to maintain its validity. If the trademark is not put to genuine use in the marketplace for the goods and services it is registered under, the trademark could be revoked and made available for use by another company. Supermac’s argument was aimed at demonstrating that McDonald’s had not fulfilled this obligation, thus risking the loss of their trademark rights.
In their argument, Supermac’s highlighted that meat and poultry are considered distinct ingredients globally, and McDonald’s had not sufficiently emphasized the Chicken Big Mac on its menus across the EU. Even if McDonald’s had done so, it failed to provide dated proof since menus typically do not include dates.
Ultimately, it was proven that McDonald’s had not maintained the necessary use of the Big Mac trademark concerning chicken products. This failure to demonstrate genuine use called into question the legitimacy of McDonald’s trademark rights under EU law. As a result, McDonald’s exclusive rights to the “Big Mac” trademark were revoked. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to EU regulations, which require continuous and genuine use of a trademark within a five-year period to preserve its validity. Without such use, even a globally recognized brand like McDonald’s can lose its trademark protection. This outcome underscores the stringent standards set by EU trademark law to ensure that trademarks remain active and relevant in the marketplace.
This case serves as a stark reminder to all popular brands to diligently adhere to trademark laws and guidelines. No matter how renowned a trademark may be, it is not immune to revocation if it fails to meet the legal requirements for genuine use. The decision against McDonald’s underscores that even the famous trademarks can be challenged and potentially lost if companies do not maintain continuous and active use of their trademarks as mandated by EU law. It is a clear warning that compliance with these regulations is crucial otherwise, the companies have risk that their trademarks can be revoked at any time, regardless of their global recognition and market presence.
