McDonald's loses Big Mac trademark after legal battle with Irish chain

theguardian.com

8 pointsgballan3 comments

I've read several articles about this and I can't for the life of me understand why: "McDonald’s had not proven genuine use of Big Mac, which it trademarked in 1996, as a burger or restaurant name."

The dispute with Supermac's is another matter; but I just can't fathom McDonalds's being told that it didn't prove it's use of "Big Mac" as a burger name.

Maybe someone better versed in European IP law can help?

I saw this on a thread on Reddit:

>The lawyers royally fucked up.

>All they had to do was provide proof that McDonalds sells Big Macs. Their evidence was signed affidavits by high ranking board members, advertisements, a Wikipedia entry and a few others of a similar vein.

>Problem was they failed to provide any evidence that McDonalds actually sells Big Macs, just that Big Macs exist and judges really don’t like “everybody knows” being treated as evidence.

"All they had to do was provide proof that McDonalds sells Big Macs."

I still think that seems odd. Seems the judge can say "I need proof these are sold" and force them to show weekly sales receipts?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com