The Mc"Clans" are In Danger

[Tobus]

Then it urns out that Ms. McCluskey wants to brand more than just a local charity fund raiser-- it now appears as if she has also franchised the name "McFest" to other groups in other states, and may be seen as intent on building a business around the name-- the "McFest" record label being but one example.

Well, yes, that's usually why people seek trademarks. To build a business. Shouldn't be any surprise there.

Finally, you raise the quite reasonable issue of "fraudulent purposes". According to most published sources Ms. McCluskey raised $30,000 for charity. Of that money, we are told, she has spent $5,000 (or nearly 20%) on her trademark filing and appeal. Raising money for a specific charity, and then spending it on something else -- if that is what she has done -- at the very least calls into question her judgement, and that of her legal advisors. Is it fraud? Well, when you tell someone that the money they are giving you is for a specific charitable purpose, and then you spend it on something else, you are guilty of a deceptive practice, if nothing else.

The "fraudulent purpose" term I invoked was meant specifically for the name itself; i.e. using the name to trick people into thinking McDonald's was somehow involved. It is clear that this is not her purpose.

As for where the money is going, I don't see that this has anything to do with what name she chose (or anything to do with McDonald's objection). But since you brought it up, it is perfectly normal and acceptable for charities to use part of their donations for covering overhead costs, improving their business assets, and increasing their operations. It would be impossible for them to grow as an organization if they didn't. If she is using part of the organization's income to expand the business through a trademark, that is obviously a business decision she thinks is worthwhile for the long-term success of her charity. This does not equal "fraud" in any way. If you care to check the norms for other charities, it looks like this is perfectly reasonable.

For those who don't care to click the link, it seems that the vast majority of charities (70% to 90%) spend between 65% and 75% of their income on their actual charitable programs, meaning they spend 25% to 35% on management/overhead/etc. In fact, it's not considered irresponsible unless they're spending more than 66% of their income on business costs and management, leaving only 33% to the charitable programs. If she's only at 16.6% of her overall income with this battle, that's hardly "fraudulent" or even questionable when compared to other charities. Of course, I don't know what her total overhead/management/expansion costs are in relation to the total income, and apparently neither do you.

Maybe you should get all the facts before implying fraud and deception?

[bear]

There was a documentary many years ago about McDonalds' bully tactics. The film maker went to Scotland and interviewed THE MacDonald. He stated that McDonalds seemed far too defensive of their name, when they'd never asked permission to use it in the first place.
Let's put the conflict into tartan terms.
The Irish National Tartan has been copied many times with subtly changed colours and names, all for the purpose of profit. Legally, they are clear of wrongdoing. I leave the morality up to individuals.
Legally, McDonalds can question a patent. In one sense it is smart to prevent competition using every legal angle.
Morally? That's up to each one of us to decide.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Maybe you should get all the facts before implying fraud and deception?

And you might wish to do the same regarding corporate bullying.

[GDub]

...Or is it bullying only if the objections are filed by large corporations?

Yes! because large corporations have LARGE sums of cash and a highly paid cadre of lawyers devoted entirely to dealing with these kinds of "issues." If a small business, non-profit or whatever decides they want to challenge an "objection" filed by said corporation then all the corporation has to do to crush any resistance is pull out the big guns. That IS the normal course of action, and just the threat of a protracted legal battle with an adversary with more or less unlimited resources IS bullying plain and simple.

[Radge]

The eejit that bought McDonald's back in the day bought the franchise to the restaurant, not the Gaelic prefix. Corporate facism at it's worse. More aggravating since those kids are trying to do something worthy.

[Rex_Tremende]

Legally, McDonalds can question a patent. In one sense it is smart to prevent competition using every legal angle.
Morally? That's up to each one of us to decide.

Yes! because large corporations have LARGE sums of cash and a highly paid cadre of lawyers devoted entirely to dealing with these kinds of "issues." If a small business, non-profit or whatever decides they want to challenge an "objection" filed by said corporation then all the corporation has to do to crush any resistance is pull out the big guns. That IS the normal course of action, and just the threat of a protracted legal battle with an adversary with more or less unlimited resources IS bullying plain and simple.

On the other hand, when a corporation with deep pockets works the legal system, their cases establish precedents that help when two companies of lesser but more equal resources have to rely on the law to help them sort things out.

Regards,
Rex.

[GDub]

On the other hand, when a corporation with deep pockets works the legal system, their cases establish precedents that help when two companies of lesser but more equal resources have to rely on the law to help them sort things out.

I'm not arguing "real" cases that establish precedent. And I'm certainly not against the legal system in general. What I'm referring to is the threat of legal action by large corporations who can work the system to bury a person, business or organization financially simply by the smoke and mirrors of filings, delays, etc. Having been the defendant in a small case where the plaintiff had a LOT more resources than me, I know this is the case.

BTW, even though I was in the right, I won my case because of stubbornness and tenacity--but it took a LONG time and cost me a bundle. They had a BIG financial advantage and used every trick in the pre-trial legal process available to them to wear me down. Needless to say, it was a bittersweet victory.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

McDonalds does not seem to have threatened legal action in this instance. They merely filed an objection to a request for a trademark assignment. This would probably best be characterized as an administrative action.

But here is something many people (including just about everybody in the blogosphere) have ignored:

McFest is not a charity. It is a company which appears to be wholly owned and operated by Jeff McClusky & Associates, a company with offices in Los Angeles and Chicago. The manager of McFest LLC is Jeff McClusky, a music industry executive with more than 30 years experience and ties to people like Bono and Mick Jagger. He is also the president and COO of Jeff McClusky & Associates. Part of Mr. McClusky's business seems to be managing bands and promoting concerts. The McFest concert in Chicago appears to be only one of the concerts his company is involved with. According to Jeff McClusky's company, and contrary to many published reports, in 2009 the McFest rock concert only raised $10,000. This was through the sale of tickets, McFest merchandise, and goods an services donated by area merchants.

So, what we really seem to have is a fairly savvy music industry executive, Mr. Jeff McClusky, filing for a trademark. That he is using his daughter, a sophomore at Boston University, as a front for publicity purposes could be characterised as disingenuous. That McDonalds has objected to this filing is their legal right, and that objection will be reviewed by the trademark commission in approximately 30 days. The reason this has dragged on is that the lawyers representing Jeff McClusky's company have filed for an extension and McDonalds has not objected, even though the original hearing was scheduled for last week.

Those are the facts. Make of them what you will.

[GDub]

Mc.Fest

Looks like a charity to me. Money to the Special Olympics. Music by local high school and college bands. And the daughter does not appear to be being "used" as a "front" by her father. By the looks of it (as described above in MacMofR's post) he seems to be doing the fatherly thing and showing her the ropes of organizing events--and perhaps pulling a few strings to help out. "Disingenuous?" C'mon.

The issue here is that McDonalds is objecting to an organization with an "Mc" in it's title. What's next, the letter "M"? Or perhaps any combination of the consonants in a "brand damaging" order? Since some large corporations are currently patenting life forms, what's stopping others from claiming the sole rights to the entire English alphabet? (Of course my tongue is firmly in my cheek, but still...)

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Mc.Fest

Looks like a charity to me.

Charities are usually registered as such; usually, although not always, with 501(c)(3), tax status. I was unable to find where Jeff McClusky & Associates' company (McFest LLC) was registered as either a charity or non-profit corporation. That said, there would be nothing to prevent it from giving a portion of its pre-tax earnings to a charity, like the Special Olympics, and reaping whatever tax benefit may accrue.

There is a difference between being a charity, and giving money to a charity. In this instance it appears as if both Jeff McClusky & Associates and McDonalds are two companies that support a common charity, ie: the Special Olympics.

That one doesn't like McDonalds shouldn't cloud one's judgement in this matter, which should be based on a well-rounded and well-informed understanding of the facts, setting aside emotion or political leanings.