Gross McGinley LLP

Blog Disclaimer

Blog Disclaimer

This Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes and intended to only provide you with a general understanding of the law, not to provide any legal advice, including on the subject of the Blog. Laws that may pertain to this Blog will vary by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to you. The content within this Blog is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way to be legal advice and thus you should not rely on any information provided in the Blog as legal advice. You should consult with appropriate legal counsel concerning any issues for which legal advice may be needed. Your review or use of the Blog and the content therein is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Please contact us if you have any questions about a Blog or would like more information, but, by contacting us, no attorney-client relationship is formed between you and Gross McGinley, LLP, including the Blog author. Do not send any confidential information to Gross McGinley, LLP or the authors of the Blog without first speaking to one of our lawyers and receiving our permission to provide confidential information. Unsolicited confidential information sent to us may not be subject to an attorney-client privilege and may not be treated as confidential. This Blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Gross McGinley, LLP disclaims all liability to all persons for any claim, loss, liability or any damages that may arise in connection with the Blog and any content or information contained in the Blog. Even though we strive to create our Blog content based on our current understanding of the law, we cannot and do not guarantee that the content and information in the Blog is current, accurate, or complete. Gross McGinley, LLP owns the copyright in the Blog, which is protected by federal and state laws, including copyright laws. The Blog cannot be altered or modified in any way. A copy of the Blog may be used and printed only for personal, educational, informational and noncommercial purposes. The Blog cannot be used for any other purpose without the express permission of Gross McGinley, LLP.

Trademark Dispute Costs McDonald’s BIG MAC

Written by: on February 28, 2019 | Category: Blog | Tags:

In what has been described as a “David versus Goliath” trademark dispute, the Cancellation Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) handed down a surprising decision cancelling the McDonald’s BIG MAC trademark registration entirely within the EU.

The trademark dispute over BIG MAC  began in 2014 when McDonald’s cited the trademark in an attempt to block the expansion of Supermac’s, an Irish fast food chain, into the EU. In response, Supermac’s filed a challenge of its own in an ultimately successful attempt to cancel the BIG MAC trademark registration on the basis that McDonald’s had not been putting the trademark to genuine use in the EU.

When a trademark is challenged for non-use, the burden is placed on the trademark owner to prove that the trademark is actually being used.  To prove use in an EU trademark dispute, the evidence must sufficiently establish the place, time, extent, and nature of use.  In this case, McDonald’s evidence of use included:

  1. Three affidavits signed by McDonald’s representatives in the UK, Germany, and France claiming significant sales of Big Mac sandwiches in their respective EU member states;
  2. Marketing and packaging materials;
  3. Printouts from McDonalds’ various European websites depicting the Big Mac sandwich; and
  4. A printout from McDonalds’ Wikipedia page providing information on the sale of Big Macs in various countries.

While the evidence displayed the BIG MAC trademark in relation to at least some of the relevant goods and services, the EUIPO ultimately held that McDonald’s failed to prove genuine use because the evidence presented did not establish the extent of use. The EUIPO’s decision was predicated, in part, on its finding that the submitted evidence lacked probative value (or weight) because almost all of the evidence originated from McDonald’s itself, rather than an uninterested third party. Further, the EUIPO found the evidence was deficient to prove use since there was “no confirmation of any commercial transactions, either online, or via brick-and-mortar operations … and no information of any actual sales taking place or any potential and relevant consumers being engaged, either through an offer, or through a sale.”

While the EUIPO’s decision is instructive for EU trademark owners when attempting to prove use of a trademark in the EU, this case also reinforces the importance for all trademark owners to maintain a diligent approach to trademark protection regardless of the trademark’s commercial success. It also serves as a fair warning that competitors will take advantage of these situations, as with Burger King.

Attorney Ross Ramaley is a member of the firm’s Business Services Group and provides legal counsel with regard to trademarks and intellectual property matters.

Next Previous
View All Attorneys
View All Practice Areas
View Blog