The IPKat has learned from The Star that McDonald's has lost its final appeal agai
nst 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.
nst 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
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Monday, September 14, 2009
Rating:
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Monday, September 14, 2009
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
Reminds me of McDowells - see paragraph with that heading at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_to_America
ReplyDeleteMcDonald'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.
ReplyDeleteBest wishes,
T.
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.
ReplyDelete