Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it Le Big Mac

January 18, 2019 1:11 PM

"In a landmark decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), McDonald's lost the right to the trademark "Big Mac" across Europe to the Ireland-based, fast-food chain Supermac."

How?

HOW?

posted by gauche (38 comments total)

In India it's the 'Maharaja Mac'. Here is the full list of Big Mac variants [wiki].
posted by Fizz at 1:12 PM on January 18, 2019 [1 favorite]

It's Macxit!
posted by chavenet at 1:13 PM on January 18, 2019 [11 favorites]

I hate Supermac! I had an awful experience with them in Dublin. I’m really sorry they won!
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 1:14 PM on January 18, 2019 [6 favorites]

Ah yes, MacDonald's. The Scottish version of McDonald's.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:21 PM on January 18, 2019 [11 favorites]

this means war
posted by clavdivs at 1:21 PM on January 18, 2019 [1 favorite]

Remember when Joshua Quittner bought "mcdonalds.com" and McDonald's shrugged and asked him if he thought the Internet was going to be a big thing?
posted by humboldt32 at 1:23 PM on January 18, 2019 [17 favorites]

Ah yes, MacDonald's. The Scottish version of McDonald's.

Oof. That's what I get for cutting and pasting.

Mods, can I get a (sic) up there?
posted by gauche at 1:23 PM on January 18, 2019

If there's one thing the world needs more of, it's the telling of multibillion multinational corporations to fuck off when they think they don't have to follow the rules. This is hilarious.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 1:25 PM on January 18, 2019 [15 favorites]

Mod note: Fixed the typo, left the jokes.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 1:34 PM on January 18, 2019 [10 favorites]

I admit, I haven't read this judgement, but based on the reporting, I find it pretty baffling. McDonald's sells and promotes the Big Mac in every jurisdiction in the EU that I've checked -- it's not like the Quarter Pounder / Royale with Cheese situation where it has different names in different places.

Has anyone actually read the decision? Did their legal team just fail to provide sufficient evidence of use? (If so, their malpractice insurer must be dying inside right now.)
posted by jacquilynne at 1:51 PM on January 18, 2019 [4 favorites]

Adding to what I just posted -- one of the linked articles indicates that the issue may have at least somewhat hinged on the difference between BIG MAC and Big Mac. Cancelling the BIG MAC trademark doesn't mean the Big Mac trademark is also cancelled.
posted by jacquilynne at 1:55 PM on January 18, 2019 [1 favorite]

Twitter this morning seemed to think a reason for McDonald's loss in this case is that the EUIPO didn't like the fact that McDonald's evidence was either self-produced (as in, their menus and packaging and marketing materials -anybody in their marketing dept could have made that up) or was from Wikipedia (which, again, anyone could edit). I don't know what sort of evidence they would have found acceptable as they were asking McDonald's to prove their used of the trademark and when McDonald's gave them proof of use of the trademark it was rejected for being from McDonald's. Bafflingly circular logic there.
posted by thecjm at 2:05 PM on January 18, 2019 [6 favorites]

I remember reading this and having a moment where I felt profoundly sorry for whoever in McDonald’s was responsible for losing this case. They must be having some of the worst days of their professional lives right now.
posted by chappell, ambrose at 2:10 PM on January 18, 2019 [2 favorites]

As a judicial decision, this is kind of ridiculous. There are fewer trademarks more broadly known and more clearly associated with a single product in the world.

On preview: I’m glad they can appeal and do it right next time.
posted by darkstar at 2:21 PM on January 18, 2019 [3 favorites]

In India it's the 'Maharaja Mac'.

Not to derail, but I just learned today that Indian McDonald's also have a friend paneer sandwich. That is all.
posted by tobascodagama at 2:29 PM on January 18, 2019 [6 favorites]

The typos continue, alas: it's "Supermac's", not "Supermac".
posted by StephenF at 2:38 PM on January 18, 2019

I learned quite a lot reading this
posted by Patapsco Mike at 2:43 PM on January 18, 2019

Not to derail, but I just learned today that Indian McDonald's also have a friend paneer sandwich.

That is...not as vegetarian as I’d assumed it would be.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:56 PM on January 18, 2019 [6 favorites]

Plants can be friends.
posted by tobascodagama at 3:10 PM on January 18, 2019 [2 favorites]

There is a new big Supermac at exit 16 of the M6 in Galway, IE. It is pretty rad, and already changing eating habits in east Galway, as its good food at decent prices (10 euro for a 3-item plate (the ribs were stellar)), NOT the usual Supermac menu) impinges on the local consciousness. Kids are big fans, and grownups not far behind.

https://www.supermacs.ie/store/galway-plaza/

Supermac itself is barely better than McD, and very much in the same universe (curry fries notwithstanding). But the M6 stop had much more. Well, more. Also petrol, of course.

Then again--I have yet to have a less-than-fine breakfast anywhere in Ireland.
posted by hexatron at 3:20 PM on January 18, 2019 [2 favorites]

They must be having some of the worst days of their professional lives right now.

The clown does not tolerate failure.
posted by betweenthebars at 3:21 PM on January 18, 2019 [6 favorites]

Supermac's

Which is not Supermax, an entirely different category of thing.
posted by JHarris at 3:22 PM on January 18, 2019 [1 favorite]

Supermac itself is barely better than McD, and very much in the same universe (curry fries notwithstanding). But the M6 stop had much more. Well, more. Also petrol, of course.

In my experience, consisting of one 33-day tour through England, Scotland and Wales, the food at services is unnaturally high quality and delicious.
posted by grumpybear69 at 5:15 PM on January 18, 2019

I'm sure there's tons of money riding on this decision, and frankly, because of that, I hope plenty of people in corporate McD's get heartburn, if nothing else. McD is evil.
And their fries are greasy.
posted by BlueHorse at 6:11 PM on January 18, 2019

Mr.Encyclopedia: If there's one thing the world needs more of, it's the telling of multibillion multinational corporations to fuck off when they think they don't have to follow the rules. This is hilarious.

It truly is hilarious. The Slate article says that they submitted a printout of the Wikipedia page for "Big Mac" as evidence. And yet, even having been forewarned by the article, when I clicked through to the affadavits themselves I still could barely believe it. They literally have a printout of the wiki page, all the way down past even the Further Reading and External Links sections all the way down to the Creative Commons footer. Also, they drew on a big arrow -- in what looks like ball-point pen, not Photoshop -- to draw attention to the product description ("The Big Mac consists of two 1.6 oz (45.4 g) beef patties, "special sauce" (a variant of Thousand Island dressing), iceberg lettuce, American cheese, pickles, and onions, served in a three-part sesame seed bun"). It's really incredible. Did all their lawyers call in sick that day and they had to get an intern to put this together or what?
posted by mhum at 6:21 PM on January 18, 2019 [5 favorites]

McD is evil.
And their fries are greasy.

damn you BlueHorse, now I want McD’s fries!
posted by valkane at 6:56 PM on January 18, 2019

Supermac itself is barely better than McD, and very much in the same universe (curry fries notwithstanding)

Hey now, they do a good veggie burger and garlic cheese chips. And if you go to the Galway city branch, you get to eat off a plate.
posted by carbide at 7:04 PM on January 18, 2019

I don't know what sort of evidence they would have found acceptable as they were asking McDonald's to prove their used of the trademark and when McDonald's gave them proof of use of the trademark it was rejected for being from McDonald's.

The Slate article makes clear that the issue was there are established rules on what counts as proof (without saying what they are) and McDonald's did not provide it.

Certainly what McDonald's provided was not "proof," in the sense that I could easily set up a website, take a picture, and pay someone to say oh, yeah, mark k has been selling "Big Marks" for years when in fact I haven't done any such thing. It only seems like proof because you actually know McDonald's does sell Big Macs, so you know they didn't have to manipulate anything to do so. I'm pretty sure McDonald's lawyers would object if their more poorly known counterparty tried to establish priority with that sort of evidence.

The court obviously knows Big Macs exist but seems fair to not give a company that gets away with a lot because of their size and resources an extra break because they are big.
posted by mark k at 7:15 PM on January 18, 2019 [9 favorites]

That makes sense. Imagine if the defendant in any other case had submitted an affidavit asserting that they hadn't done anything wrong alongside a screencap of iamthedefendantandidefinitelydidnotdoanythingwrong.com.

OTOH, your grandmother's receipt from 30 years ago that she kept around just in case would probably be pretty good evidence of the trademark being in use, as long as it clearly stated the location of the purchase took place at a McDonald's somewhere in the EU.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:58 PM on January 18, 2019 [3 favorites]

This reminds me of the coffee lady lawsuit way back in the day. If McDonald’s lawyers had taken her case seriously and not treated her as a slip-and-fall scam artist, they wouldn’t have lost that case, either.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:26 PM on January 18, 2019 [4 favorites]

The Slate article linked from the first "How?" theorizes that what the court was looking for (and what they were trying to get at with the whole "yeah menus are great but YOU made those, how can we trust you" argument) was evidence that people outside of the McDonald's marketing department know what a Big Mac is. Apparently the previous legal challenge that McDonald's won included brand awareness surveys, which does actually sound more convincing than "look at all these menus and ads we made" if you don't automatically assume that everyone knows what a Big Mac is and why are we even in court arguing about this.

So it sounds a lot less like the court literally doesn't believe McDonald's sells Big Macs, and more that the court is punishing McDonald's for not putting in the required legal work. I can get behind that.
posted by chrominance at 10:49 PM on January 18, 2019 [3 favorites]

So Supermac's is a fairly standard regional fast food place ( Menu ). It's not someplace you would confuse with McDonald's. Whenever I get back to Ireland, I do try to get a Smokey Bacon burger. So hard to tell what of it is good versus nostalgia.

McDonald's were very late to show up in Ireland. Outside of Dublin, most towns had a Supermac's decades before McDonald's showed up. Since my surname is "Mac Donnchadha", it seems extremely weird to me that McDonald's would be able to get a trademark to the "Mac" suffix.
posted by DoveBrown at 12:49 AM on January 19, 2019 [1 favorite]

According to the ruling revoking the US food giant’s 1996 trademark registration, McDonald's failed to prove genuine use of "Big Mac" as a burger or restaurant name in the five years before 2017, when the case was filed.
...
It had also "submitted printouts of European websites as well as posters, packaging, and affidavits from company representatives, to attest to 'Big Mac' sales in Europe," according to Reuters. "The EUIPO said the affidavits from McDonald’s needed to be supported by other types of evidence, and that the websites and promotional materials did not provide that support."

Note what they did not submit: sales receipts showing sales of "Big Mac." Prices and locations where you can buy a "Big Mac." (Or maybe a "BIG MAC," which seems to be the trademark that's going to be revoked. ) Photos of McDonald's restaurants with "Big Mac" (BIG MAC) on the menu; videos of customers in Europe ordering a BIG MAC; commercials telling customers that the BIG MAC they're about to order contains two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun.

Quote from the ruling:

the documents do not provide conclusive information that the products marked with the EUTM [European Union trademark] are offered for actual sale, as there is no confirmation of any commercial transactions, either online, or via brick-and-mortar operations. Even if the goods were offered for sale, there is no data about how long the products were offered on the given web page or in other ways, and there is no information of any actual sales taking place

posted by ErisLordFreedom at 8:24 AM on January 19, 2019 [2 favorites]

But do you know that McDonald's won a trademark suite against a car workshop naming themselves "Donken" because that is what McD is called in Sweden
posted by uandt at 10:41 AM on January 19, 2019

This reminds me of the coffee lady lawsuit way back in the day. If McDonald’s lawyers had taken her case seriously and not treated her as a slip-and-fall scam artist, they wouldn’t have lost that case, either.

How do you mean? Serving coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) seems pretty negligent no matter what.
posted by Cogito at 1:11 PM on January 19, 2019 [2 favorites]

I think what they mean is if McDonalds had offered a fair settlement, they wouldn't have lost the case so badly. One of the things that was really infuriating about the Hot Coffee lawsuit is that they offered to pitch in like 800 bucks for that poor woman's medical care, which was insultingly low. So she sued and won hugely. If McDonalds had owned their fuck up and just covered her medical bills, there probably wouldn't have been a lawsuit.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 2:29 PM on January 19, 2019 [3 favorites]

Oh, yeah, I agree that should’ve been settled out of court. I thought the implication was that like this trademark dispute, McD’s put up a half-hearted legal defense against a relatively frivolous legal action. In those terms the cases seem very different. In terms of general, face-palming legal strategy, they’re quite similar.
posted by Cogito at 5:04 PM on January 19, 2019

Does anyone know if European courts normally allow new evidence on appeal? (I assume it's possible in some cases, where the appeal is based on, "here's the error that didn't allow us to enter this evidence the first time.")

If they don't, McD's may be out of luck - I doubt that any courts are going to look well on a claim of, "but Your Honor, we didn't submit all that info the first time because everyone knew who we are and what we do; we didn't need to hand over real proof."

(Do they sell Big Macs in Europe? Or are the Mac Grande in Spain, Gros Mac in France, and so on?)
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 6:09 PM on January 19, 2019