McDonald’s will go a long way to protect their trademark. So much so, in fact, that it seems they’re willing to sue any restaurant that starts with the prefix Mc. McCurry was one such restaurant.
The Malaysian-based, family owned establishment has little in common with McDonald’s outside of the “Mc” prefix and colour-scheme, but that was enough to set McDonald’s into an 8-year court battle over the name.
During that time, the restaurant dropped the C from their sign, going by the name M Curry until the dispute was resolved. M Curry’s menu couldn’t have been more different from McDonald’s. Serving traditional Indian foods like curry and dosai, there’s not a burger or fry anywhere in sight. The restaurants problems started back in 1999 when they decided to shorten their name from the rather verbose Malaysian Chicken Curry Restaurant. Since then it’s been an uphill battle of legal fees and undue stress.
Last week, M Curry’s owner climbed a ladder and put the C back on the sign. The battle was over. McCurry won out.
McDonald’s could still (and likely will) attempt to appeal the decision, and McCurry’s legal woes could be far from over. It’s just amazing to see the lengths some companies will go to to claim dominion over something as simple as a couple of letters.
I’ve also heard of Monster (who makes tv cables) sueing a small-town golf-course called Monster.
Very silly.
i think in this case, i would of just changed the name in the first place. the money you lose in legal fees would almost be enough to put you out of business.
That’s what they count on you doing. Most of the time when those huge companies sue small ones, they probably expect the little guy to just agree to avoid the legal costs. Sure, you may win in the end — as long as you can afford to continue operating while paying your lawyers for 8 years.
McHarrassing honest McBusinesses? McSuing McThem over McQuestionable McIntellectual McProperty McRights? Not McCool, McDonalds. Not McCool.
Can’t beat free advertising though. How many of us even knew there was a McCurry?
not that I am pro Big companies like McDonald’s and their practices to put small business out of work but its too much of a coincidence to have both similar name and colour with a famous brand isn’t it?
Well, red’s a very common colour for business logos and signs. Yellow, not so much.
It’s the same colours, but the sign doesn’t look anything like McDonald’s.
Red and Yellow are auspicious colours for Indians, it’s not surprising they used those colours for their sign. Plus they shortened Malaysian Chicken to MC — so it’s not like they tacked on the ‘Mc’ to simply to get attention.
The recent McDonald’s v. McCurry ruling is not surprising. Just by the three main DuPont factors alone, appearance, sound and meaning, these two marks are arguably not confusingly similar. Add to that the difference in menus, and the difference in trade dress, and you have a pretty strong case for McCurry, which the panel seemingly accepted. The letters “Mc” cannot be totally, exclusively owned by one entity worldwide. And it’s not as if people are going to mix up McCurry with McDonalds. Now, if McCurry used the golden arches, had a clown and similar characters associated with the restaurant, that would be problematic. Those elements were not present in this case. On our site, http://www.trademarksprotected.com, we help with these trademark issues and any trademark questions.
It’s not like the restaurant is named McDonalds
I don’t see how they can claim “Mc”
so burger king can sue any restaurant with burger in the name? xD