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

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Mc Donald’s victorious in Court: Hotel adjacent to Fast Food

10. October 2019

Mc Donald’s was today victorious in a trademark dispute before the European Court and opposed registration of the EU figurative mark Mc Dreams for a hotel. The court saw a hotel’s services as an neighbouring market segment to fast food services.


Mc Dreams vs Mc Donald'sAt the centre was the Union figurative mark “Mc Dreams”, registered by McDreams Hotel GmbH (Germany). Although the overall impression of the mark applied for is very little similar to the word mark of the fast food chain, Mc Dreams fits very well into the family of marks of Mc Donald’s, the Court explained. Mc Donald’s is the owner of an entire family of marks in the EU, including McMISSION, McINTERNET, McCOMPASS, McFAMILY, McCAFE and McWRAP. And already in the MACCOFFEE judgment (T-518/13), the Court had held that the prefix MC was capable of characterising the existence of a family of marks.

A special feature in this case was the application of Article 8(5) of EU Regulation No 2017/1001, since it was not the likelihood of confusion that was negotiated, as is otherwise customary, but the similarity of marks where the earlier mark is a well-known one, even for goods and services which are not comparable to those of the earlier mark.

Overall impression of the marks only slight degree of similarity

Mc Donald’s had based its opposition to the registration of the figurative mark Mc Dreams mainly on its own earlier Union word mark Mc Donald’s. The opposition was based on the fact that Mc Donald’s had not registered the figurative mark Mc Dreams. Accordingly, the similarities between the marks were examined visually, phonetically and conceptually. Since the only similarity between the marks is given by the prefix “mc”, the CFI found only a low degree of similarity both visually and conceptually. As regards aural similarity, the Court found that the two marks were similar to an average degree. Overall, therefore, there is only a low degree of similarity between the two marks.

However, for Article 8(5) to apply, it is not necessary for the degree of similarity between the earlier mark with a reputation and the mark applied for to be such as to create a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public. As soon as there is a link with the earlier mark with a reputation, even if there is a low degree of similarity, Article 8(5) may be applied, the Court of First Instance stated.

Hotel and fast food – comparable services?

The contested Union figurative mark Mc Dreams was registered for services in Nice Class 43, namely ‘provision of temporary accommodation’. Mc Donald’s, in turn, was registered at the time of registration as a Union word mark in Nice Class 42. However, serving dishes and beverages are now classified in Nice Class 43. Such a circumstance is, however, irrelevant for the purposes of examining the similarity of the services in question, the European Court stated.

In addition, the Court saw hotel services and fast food services as neighbouring market segments. If a hotel’s services do not include the provision of a kitchen where guests can prepare their own meals, food and drink and accommodation services are often offered, the CFI explained. Therefore, fast food services and the services covered by the mark applied for should be regarded as belonging to neighbouring market segments.

McDreams Hotel argued that it offered only hotel services which did not include food and beverage services. The CFI considered this to be irrelevant. In order to assess the similarity between the services in question, the group of services protected by the marks in question had to be taken into account and not the services actually marketed under those marks, the CFI explained.

Earlier mark with an exceptionally high reputation

However, the brand family of Mc Donald’s weighs more heavily and that the Mc Dreams brand fits very well into this brand family, according to the court. The plaintiff, McDreams Hotel, had not even tried to call into question the exceptionally high reputation and prestige of the earlier McDonald’s mark. Instead, the applicant referred to other registered EU trade marks which also contain the prefix “mc”, “mc travel”, registered under No 9 413 881, and “mc cruise”, registered under No 3 546 686. The Court pointed out that the applicant had not invoked any infringement of the principle of equal treatment and therefore found, rather marginally, that those marks differed substantially from the contested trade mark “Mc Dreams”, in particular as regards the colour scheme.

Mark Mc Dreams refused under Article 8(5)

The CFI refused the trademark registration pursuant to Article 8(5) of EU Regulation 2017/1001. This paragraph 5 of this Regulation is not applied as often, as the requirements for infringement of this paragraph are high. A trade mark cannot therefore be registered,

  • if it is identical with or similar to an earlier trade mark and is to be registered for goods or services which are not comparable to those of the earlier trade mark
  • where an earlier trade mark is an EU trade mark with a reputation in the European Union
  • and where use without due cause of the mark applied for would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the reputation of the earlier mark.

The European Court considered all this to be proven by the trademark application of MC Dreams. Mc Donald’s today successfully opposed the trademark registration of the figurative mark Mc Dreams for a hotel.

Would you also like to protect your trademark or brand?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

 

Sources: 

Judgement CFI “Mc Dreams” EU:T:2019:738

Image:

PublicDomainImages / www.pixabay.com / CCO License

  • share  58 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconsimilarity,  Mc Donald's,  Hotel,  Mc Dreams,  Fast-Food,  earlier mark with a reputation,  service,  judgment,  class 43,  CFI,  context

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

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

  • 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
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. 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:

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

10. February 2022
CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

Contact us or request a call back

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

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 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

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

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

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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