Intellectual Property Law

Malaysian Court Says MCCURRY Does Not Infringe MCDONALD'S

By Michael Atkins

McCurry’s owners get a happy result in victory against McDonald’s.
Photo credit: AP/Mark Baker

On Sept. 8, a 3-judge panel of Malaysia’s federal court found a restaurant’s use of MCCURRY does not infringe McDonald’s Corp.’s rights in its well-known trademark. It’s apparently the end of the line for McDonald’s in its 8-year fight.

The AP cites McCurry’s attorney as saying the ruling means McDonald’s does not have a monopoly over “MC” trademarks in connection with restaurants. “This is a precedent to follow,” he said.

McCurry’s sells its curry fare in connection with white-and-grey lettering, a red background, and logo featuring a smiling chicken giving two thumbs up. McDonald’s, of course, sells its western-style fare in connection with its familiar golden arches. The court found these differences supported McCurry’s claim it isn’t passing itself off as being related to the worldwide chain, which has 137 locations in Malaysia.

All of this brings to mind the dispute between McDonald’s and the Seattle-area maker of pickled onions branded as MCSWEET’S. That got some attention last year in the local press, but the case is still very much alive. Now in its third year in McDonald’s opposition proceeding before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the case already has 58 docket entries. On Sept. 4, the TTAB put the case in suspension pending decision on McSweet’s motion for summary judgment and McDonald’s motion to strike.

I don’t imagine the Malaysian decision will come into play (obviously), though the issues appear similar — is McDonald’s the only player in the food business that can have “MC” in its trademark?

Thanks, Jefferson Coulter of Copyright or Wrong, for bringing the McCurry case to STL’s attention!

Full post as published by Seattle Trademark Lawyer on September 09, 2009 (boomark / email).