The Mc"Clans" are In Danger

[Rex_Tremende]

So, I may be the lone dissenter here, though I'm not saying that there's not a solution to the problem, but are there none of us here who are business owners or shareholders or work for a corporation or support a non-profit for whom brand identity and protection are a consideration? Is there some sort of threshold of brand recognition and ubiquity that such considerations become irrelevant?

Regards,
Rex.

[davedove]

So, I may be the lone dissenter here, though I'm not saying that there's not a solution to the problem, but are there none of us here who are business owners or shareholders or work for a corporation or support a non-profit for whom brand identity and protection are a consideration? Is there some sort of threshold of brand recognition and ubiquity that such considerations become irrelevant?

Regards,
Rex.

You're not alone Rex. McDonald's has every legal right to do this.

However, since this is a charity event, I think McD's is missing out on a great opportunity for some good PR.

[CDNSushi]

So, I may be the lone dissenter here, though I'm not saying that there's not a solution to the problem, but are there none of us here who are business owners or shareholders or work for a corporation or support a non-profit for whom brand identity and protection are a consideration? Is there some sort of threshold of brand recognition and ubiquity that such considerations become irrelevant?

Regards,
Rex.

Rex, I don't think people are suggesting that McD's not have the right to protect its brand. The argument is that their protectionist policies tend to overreach and overstep their bounds.

What makes this case extra sticky (other than the sympathy factor that it's a David vs Goliath story where David happens to be a teenage girl trying to raise money for charity) is that "Mc" IS very common outside of McDonalds's sphere, especially in Ireland or Scotland.

This sort of thing is by no means unusual though, and to me it would make more sense to set out on a path of negotiation and reasoning with key people rather than sicking lawyers on each other.

If you want to read about similar trademark wars, you only have to go as far as Apple Corps (Beatles) vs. Apple (computer company)... And every so often the Calgary Stampeders CFL football team has a run-in with Ford over their common use of a mustang logo...

Seriously... This is nothing new or unusual.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

So, I may be the lone dissenter here, though I'm not saying that there's not a solution to the problem, but are there none of us here who are business owners or shareholders or work for a corporation or support a non-profit for whom brand identity and protection are a consideration? Is there some sort of threshold of brand recognition and ubiquity that such considerations become irrelevant?

Regards,
Rex.

Brand identity is key to the survival of any company. Volkswagen stoutly defends its "VW" logo just as Roll-Royce regulates not only the name (try calling your sandwich the Roll-Royce of hamburgers) the R-R logos (including the hypen in the name and logo) as well as the "Flying Lady" that appears on the radiator of its cars and on the jet engines that propel aircraft. It's all about product quality and product (corporate) liability.

The threshold of brand recognition is crossed when a brand fails to support its ubiquitous rights across the boards. Selective enforcement is no enforcement, and can lead to loss of ownership of the brand name, trade mark, or logo. Which is why Coca-Cola is ferocious in guarding the word "Coke" and doesn't hesitate to take action against brand transgressors when necessary.

In the instance of the fund-raiser, McDonald's failure to protect its rights could possibly be construed as "implied consent" and open the door to potential litigation should someone sue Ms. McClusky and the organizers of her event for any reason what so ever. Frivolous lawsuits are a fact of corporate life, and cost corporations millions of dollars every year-- cost which are ultimately passed on to the consumer.

By protecting their corporate identity companies like Apple, or Nike, or McDonalds are able to assure the public of the quality and consistency of their products, and protect consumers from shoddy or dangerous products with similar names, or branded with similar logotypes. They also protect themselves from bogus litigation, which is a good thing.

That said, I'm now going out for a Big Mac and fries.

[Phil]

As MOR says, large corporations guard their brand identities jealously. I recall a thread a while back about a Canadian whisky/whiskey? firm using the word Glen in their product which was an obvious attempt to pass it off as Scottish and the Scotch whisky people's litigation to prevent it. I still find it difficult to accept that any company can obtain the exclusive rights to what is, in effect, an individual's name just as others tried to patent genomes. That they can, however, is a matter for governments to legislate for and a matter to raise with your particular political representative.

[Highland Logan]

As MOR says, large corporations guard their brand identities jealously. I recall a thread a while back about a Canadian whisky/whiskey? firm using the word Glen in their product which was an obvious attempt to pass it off as Scottish and the Scotch whisky people's litigation to prevent it.

I also agree with MoR, however as a side bar you should check your facts on the bolded piece.

Frank

[Phil]

I also agree with MoR, however as a side bar you should check your facts on the bolded piece.

Frank

How about this? - http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/c...nadian+whiskey

[Lachlan09]

Let's open a rival burger chain called "Campbells". The motto can be "Our burgers massacre the opposition !"

[wvpiper]

So, I may be the lone dissenter here, though I'm not saying that there's not a solution to the problem, but are there none of us here who are business owners or shareholders or work for a corporation or support a non-profit for whom brand identity and protection are a consideration? Is there some sort of threshold of brand recognition and ubiquity that such considerations become irrelevant?

Regards,
Rex.

I'm with you, also, Rex. McDonald's isn't objecting to the use of the term 'McFest'. They're objecting to the attempted trademark of the term 'McFest'
The easy solution to me is to stop trying to trademark it but continue to use it.