The Mc"Clans" are In Danger

[PEEDYC]

Not a nice business Miccky D's. Some of their outlets were and probably still are franchised. I understand that they would have a promotion for say free toys for kids with a meal however the advertising would state " Participating Restaurants Only" and the non participating ones would be the franchised ones. They could purchase the toys from Micky D to participate in the promotion thus reducing their profits ..... MIccy D would then offer to buy them out at a reduced cost. I am more than happy to boycot them

[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.

[MacKay71]

McStupid!!!!!!

[Tobus]

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

Not to get political, but a legal right does not equal a moral right. If anything, I think this example highlights the absurdity of such laws. For a business to trademark a prefix that would preclude people who have a name with that prefix from using it on their own is silly.

In fact, the very idea of holding exclusive rights to a name itself is silly. If your name is John Smith, should you be able to trademark your name and sue anyone else named John Smith from using it? It seems to me that this is a classic case of a corporation using its money to wield the force of government for their own selfishness. And while they may have a legal right to do it (the ruling, if it comes to that, will settle it), it's still stupid and immoral in my opinion.

If they do have a genuine concern about people associating the McFest with McDonald's, they should simply ask her to put a disclaimer on her advertising literature to state that it is not affiliated with the McDonald's corporation. That's reasonable. But trying to ban her from using the name McFest (which is not even a name they've ever used for anything) is just corporate bullying.

[beloitpiper]

I would boycott McDonalds, but I never eat there anyway so my boycott wouldn't affect them at all.

[MrLion]

Just one more reason not to eat there. Haven't been there in years.

[nagod]

calling it McFest seems to imply corporate endorsement by McDonalds.calling it Mc Cluskey Fest would have been better(think of labelling on kilts)

[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.

[Tobus]

calling it McFest seems to imply corporate endorsement by McDonalds.calling it Mc Cluskey Fest would have been better(think of labelling on kilts)

To further illustrate the absurdity of the trademark thing, since McDonalds 'owns' the rights to the prefix "Mc", they could technically still go after her for it, even though she's simply using her name. Of course, I wouldn't expect any court or judge to actually rule in their favor if that were the case, but they'd at least have a legal argument.