McDonald loses court battle in Malaysia
In a David-and-Goliath match-up in the world of fast food in Malaysia, McDonald loses a court battle against McCurry -- a small Indian curry shop in Malaysia. The court battle lasted for eight years. McDonald's claimed that the prefix "Mc" in McCurry trampled on its trademark. The country's Federal Court on Tuesday ruled that it didn't. Photo: McCurry restaurant owners A.M.S.P Suppiah and his wife Kanageswary Suppiah.
The eatery opened in 1999. McDonald's filed suit two years later. The owner says McCurry, which serves Indian food, is an abbreviation for Malaysian Chicken Curry.
The ruling by a three-member panel of the Federal Court ends all legal avenues for McDonald’s to protect its name from what it said was a trademark infringement.
McDonald’s will have to pay RM10,000 to McCurry, a popular eatery in Jalan Ipoh on the edge of Kuala Lumpur’s downtown. McDonald’s lawyers refused to comment, except to say the company will abide by the judgment.
McCurry lawyer Sri Devi Nair said the ruling means McDonald’s does not have a monopoly on the prefix ‘Mc,’ and that other restaurants could also use it as long as they distinguish their food from McDonald’s.
Related links:
* McCurry wins battle against McDonald's
blogging
1 comments:
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.
Post a Comment