I find this article to be a more measured analysis of the EUIPO's decision. Worth noting is that the trademark that McDonald's has had does not cover just burgers, and their defence team didn't...
I find this article to be a more measured analysis of the EUIPO's decision.
Worth noting is that the trademark that McDonald's has had does not cover just burgers, and their defence team didn't appear to address the other registered uses in their evidence. Since the burden of proof is on the defendant, and the EUIPO has to operate on the facts that they are provided and not on "probabilities and presumptions", as they put it in their conclusion, the decision makes sense.
It's also good to keep in mind the wider context where McDonald's has in the past years been blocking Supermac's own trademark applications, thus putting it into an inconvenient position where the Irish chain would like to expand to continental Europe but would find it difficult to do so with their existing brand, in use since the late 70s. It doesn't look to me like Supermac is trying to "make a quick buck", as suggested by another commenter here. It seems much more like a genuine dispute over branding territories.
I went through quite a bit of reading to confirm that this all happened because McDonald's did not bother to appropriately dispute the claim and provided evidence that wasn't in line with what was...
I went through quite a bit of reading to confirm that this all happened because McDonald's did not bother to appropriately dispute the claim and provided evidence that wasn't in line with what was being asked.
Of course the Irish chain at the other end of it all is looking to make a quick buck, but McDonald's appeal will set it right as expected.
I find this article to be a more measured analysis of the EUIPO's decision.
Worth noting is that the trademark that McDonald's has had does not cover just burgers, and their defence team didn't appear to address the other registered uses in their evidence. Since the burden of proof is on the defendant, and the EUIPO has to operate on the facts that they are provided and not on "probabilities and presumptions", as they put it in their conclusion, the decision makes sense.
It's also good to keep in mind the wider context where McDonald's has in the past years been blocking Supermac's own trademark applications, thus putting it into an inconvenient position where the Irish chain would like to expand to continental Europe but would find it difficult to do so with their existing brand, in use since the late 70s. It doesn't look to me like Supermac is trying to "make a quick buck", as suggested by another commenter here. It seems much more like a genuine dispute over branding territories.
I went through quite a bit of reading to confirm that this all happened because McDonald's did not bother to appropriately dispute the claim and provided evidence that wasn't in line with what was being asked.
Of course the Irish chain at the other end of it all is looking to make a quick buck, but McDonald's appeal will set it right as expected.