• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Big Mac is temporary no Unionmark

17. January 2019

Mc Donald’s has temporarily lost its Big Mac brand for the European Union. EUIPO granted the request for cancellation of the trademark on Friday.

Unionwordmark Big Mac was cancelled

Big Mac McDonald'sThe Big Mac Unionmark was cancelled last Friday following an application by the Irish Supermac’s for the trade mark to be cancelled. Supermac’s is an Irish fast food chain which opened the first Supermacs in Ireland in 1978. The company now has more than 100 branches in Ireland and Northern Ireland. The conflict with McDonald’s arose when Supermac wanted to expand beyond Ireland. McDonald’s referred to the similarity between Big Mac and Supermac, which could lead to confusion among consumers.

McDonald’s versus Supermac’s

Supermac objected and, in April 2017, filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark protection for Big Mac. The Union word mark Big Mac (Nr. 000062638) has been protected since 1996. On 11 January 2019, the EUIPO granted the application for cancellation of the trade mark. The revocation of trademark protection applies retroactively to April 2017. It was established in the cancellation proceedings, which we can see in the decision of the EUIPO on this case, that Mc Donald’s had not proven any genuine use of the Big Mac trademark in the five years prior to the filing of the case in 2017. Mc Donald’s submitted evidence in the form of printouts of European websites, packaging and also affidavits of company representatives certifying the sale of “Big Mac” in Europe. Whether a purchase was actually made or an order placed, however, could not be proven by such evidence, the EUIPO judged.

Cancellation of Big Mac temporarily

The decision is not yet final. In addition, Mc Donald’s can appeal and has already announced that it will do so. Mc Donald’s Europe-wide use of the BIG MAC brand should also be at the centre of this.

Mc Donald’s has registered word mark Big Mac twice

Incidentally, in 2017 Mc Donald’s once again registered the word mark Big Mac as a union word mark. Since April 2018 the union word mark Big Mac ( No. 017305079) is registered. This mark was registered for fewer classes than the provisionally cancelled mark Big Mac and is limited to the Nice classes 29, 30 and 43, which include food and franchise restaurants. The scope of protection of this new Big Mac trademark applies from the date of the trademark application, October 6, 2017. Moreover, this trademark cannot be challenged in the next 5 years, as a trademark has a five-year grace period. The aim is to allow the trademark applicant sufficient time to actively bring the trademark into his sales activities.

Bottom Line

In the causal conflict between Mc Donald’s and Supermac’s over the term “Supermac”, Mc Donald’s currently has significantly worse arguments. Because the newer word mark Big Mac has only one priority from October 2017, the cancelled mark from 1996. But the brand name Big Mac has by no means become free for everyone. On the one hand it is protected by the newer Big Mac trademark, on the other hand it would not be recommendable to use the now deleted trademark anyway. Because an appeal is admissible, and Mc Donald’s could possibly win the case in the last instance. And then Big Mac would have been used unfairly by anyone using that brand name.

Would you also like to protect your trademark or brand?

Please take your chance and contact us. Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

CAT-call_en

Sources:

EUIPO Unionwordmark Big Mac – cancellation pending

Picture:

moreharmony /pixabay.com / CCO License  

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law Tag iconBig Mac,  Burger,  cancellation,  EUIPO,  McDonald's,  proof of genuine use of earlier mark,  Supermac's,  Trademark,  Unionmark,  wordmark

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: International Intellectual Property

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.