McDonald's final defeat by McCurry

The IPKat has learned from The Star that McDonald's has lost its final appeal against a Malaysian restaurant's use of the name McCurry (see previous coverage from the IPKat here). The Malaysian Federal Court refused leave to appeal against an earlier decision holding that confusion between the fast food chain and McCurry, which sells Malaysian chicken and fish head curries, was unlikely. McDonald's was also ordered to pay costs after failing to adquately explain how the earlier decision was flawed.

The IPKat has a sneaking sympathy for McDonald's here. He agrees that confusion is unlikely (he can't see fish heads appearing on McDonald's menus any time soon). However, he can't help but wonder if there wasn't just a tiny intention to create an association. Even if the 'Mc' stands for 'Malysian Chicken' as the owner has suggested, isn't it a little odd that a small 'c' is used. What really puzzles the IPKat though is whether an association with McDonald's would really help to shift chicken curry.
McDonald's final defeat by McCurry McDonald's final defeat by McCurry Reviewed by Anonymous on Monday, September 14, 2009 Rating: 5


  1. Reminds me of McDowells - see paragraph with that heading at

  2. McDonald's Corp. has lost a battle over the Mc-prefix in Poland. See this short post entitled "Poland: No exclusive rights to MC" which is available at Class 46.

    Best wishes,

  3. My colleague pointed out that surely Curry's (electronics) could have a shout at a law suit. It's far more likely people will get confused between electronic goods and chicken curry.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.