From Malaysia reaches us the news of the outcome of an "eight year trade mark battle" over the use of the mark "McCurry" for restaurant services between P. Suppiah the owner of an Indian restaurant in Jalan Ipoh, Malaysia and fast food giant McDonald's.According to a report by Malaysian news site "The Star" McDonald's filed a law suit against Mr. P. Suppiah in 2001 trying to stop him from using the prefix "Mc" because it could cause confusion and could lead consumers to associate his "McCurry Restaurant"restaurant with McDonald’s. The problems appear to have started after Mr. Suppiah re-branded his restaurant as "McCurry"; after it had previously been known under the perhaps less evocative name "Restoran Penang Curry House (KL) Sdn Bhd".

McDonald's reportedly argued that the prefix "Mc" had to be considered as a trade mark and that through the use of the prefix "Mc", in combination with the word "Curry", McCurry Restaurant had misrepresented itself as being associated with McDonald’s. While the first instance court had initially ruled in McDonald’s favour in 2006, the Court of Appeal has now decided in Mr. Suppiah favour.
"... you have to look at the plaintiff's getup or logo as a whole ... it consists of a distinctive golden arched 'M' with the word, McDonald's, against a red background."
[In contrast] "... the defendant's (McCurry) signboard carried the words 'Restoran McCurry' with the lettering in white and grey on a red background with a picture of a chicken giving a double thumbsup and with the wording, 'Malaysian Chicken Curry'."
Reviewed by Birgit Clark
on
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Rating:



At least this time McDonald's doesn't have to defend itself against dog food, as was the case in the German Federal Supreme Court ;-)
ReplyDeleteThat McDonald, as anybody else, is disappointed by loosing a case is not really big news or is it?
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous Spoilsport! I enjoyed reading this.
ReplyDeleteCurious as to why the chicken should be so approving of chicken curry...
ReplyDeleteSorry for being too brief. I didn't mean that the article wasn't worth reading. I was only referring to McDonald being dissapointed by the decision of the Court of Appeal :-)
ReplyDeleteAs a general remark I find the IPKAT a very interesting and useful blog. Keep on the good work.
One of the High Courts in India too ruled that McDonald's had no propreitary right over "Mc" alone and hence did not grant an interim injunction upon the use of MC/MAC by another party.
ReplyDelete