ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Law Blog - WSJ.com

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal News

: Law Blog - WSJ.com

McDefeated in Malaysia

By Ashby Jones

ADVERTISEMENTS

mccurryHuh. Any trademark lawyers care to weigh in on this case? We don’t know trademark law well enough to answer why we feel this way, we have a sense that U.S. trademark law might have dictated a different result.

The news: McDonald’s Corp. on Tuesday lost an eight-year battle to prevent a family-run Kuala Lumpur restaurant from calling itself “McCurry.” Click here for the WSJ story.

Huh. So McCurry lives on? Apparently so. Sri Dev Nair, a McCurry lawyer, interprets the ruling as meaning that as long as other restaurants distinguish their cuisines from that of McDonalds, other restaurants are free to use the prefix. McDonald’s officials couldn’t immediately be reached for comment, but the Associated Press reported the company’s counsel as saying it will abide by the judgment.

McCurry’s struggle to be known as McCurry has become a cause celebre in Malaysia in recent years. Established in 1999, the restaurant adopted a Western-style fast-food ambience to serve traditional Indian and Malaysian dishes, such as fish-head curry.

“We chose an international-sounding name to attract as many customers as possible,” said P. Suppiah (pictured, left), one of the restaurant’s owners. McCurry, he said, is shorthand for “Malaysian chicken curry,” and the restaurant’s logo displays a bright-yellow chicken giving a thumbs-up sign.

Suppiah’s 24-hour restaurant quickly become a local icon in the Jalan Ipoh district of Kuala Lumpur, with red-and-white signage and a popular menu with Malaysian-style tea, coconut rice with spicy shrimp and chicken, and chicken tandoori.

McDonald’s, however, saw McCurry as a legal threat. They first sued McCurry for trademark infringement in 2001 and a court ruled in favor of McDonalds in 2006.

McCurry appealed, and the Court of Appeal ruled in the Malaysian restaurant’s favor in April this year, pointing out that McCurry serves curry, not burgers. McDonald’s then took the matter to Malaysia’s Federal Court, which on Tuesday ruled that McDonald’s can’t appeal against the lower court verdict.

Again, we’d love a bit of insight here. Seems to us that if a Western-style fast-food sushi restaurant decided to call itself “McSushi,” it might be outta luck.


Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on September 08, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0124 secs (new cache)