The Mc"Clans" are In Danger

[PEEDYC]

I wonder what they would do if it was a Laura McDonald that was promoting the festival and calling it McDonald Fest? How can a corporation stop someone from using their own name? McDonalds have even applied for a US Patent on the method and apparatus for making their snack. So beware you may get sued if you happen to make a home made burger and it resembles a McDonalds one ..... The world is mad ......

[auld argonian]

Gee....why am I reminded of the Groucho Marx letter to Warner Brothers?

Warner Brothers threatened to sue the Marx Brothers over the title of the Marx Bro's movie, "A Night In Casablanca", maintaining that it infringed on the copyright of their motion picture, "Casablanca".

Groucho reminded the Bro's Warner that he and his brothers were "The Marx Brothers" before they were "The Warner Brothers"....should he sue them over the word "brothers"?

http://www.groucho.com/

Enjoy! And as for that hamburger slingin' doofy red haired clown and his deep fried buddies...I don't see no tartan...you got a tartan? Huh? I didn't think so...gedouttahere!


Best

AA

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

So they're suing her because they might, in the possible future, want to have a McFest of their own?

One: they are not suing her. What McDonalds has done is file an objection to McClusky's request for a trademark on the grounds that they feel it infringes on their intellectual property rights.

Suppose your neighbor decided to build a garage in his back yard and he went down to city hall and applied for a building permit. You read in the paper that your neighbor has applied for a permit to build a garage, but you object to this because you feel it will block the light in your back yard, with the consequent damages that a lack of sunlight may cause. In other words you object to what he does on his property because of how it will effect your property.

Do you sue your neighbor? No. You file an objection to his request for a building permit, and the city decides if your objection is valid, or not. If it is valid your neighbor is prevented from building his garage. If your objection is not considered valid, then your neighbor goes ahead and builds his garage.

It's as simple as that and exactly the same when filing for trademarks. As long as no one objects you get your trademark. If someone objects, then there is an administrative hearing to determine if the trademark application should be allowed or denied.

[Tobus]

What McDonalds has done is file an objection to McClusky's request for a trademark on the grounds that they feel it infringes on their intellectual property rights.

If that's the case, then it IS corporate bullying. A common prefix like "Mc" is not their intellectual property. It existed centuries before their corporation did.

This would be like O'Reilly's Auto Parts suddenly objecting to anyone else who had a business or organization that started with "O". They neither own that prefix, nor would they have any moral authority (I would say legal authority, but sadly morality and legality are seldom the same) to tell anyone else they can't use it. The very idea is so absurd, I can't believe that McDonalds has the audacity to try it. They've lost their common sense in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

[Semiomniscient]

They should go sue MC Hammer...

Anyway, from my personal standpoint, I've NEVER seen a boycott like this work. Ever. They cannot work because they will never have enough people all boycotting at the same time (and sticking to it) to make a difference. Letters and petitions on the other hand, may have an impact.

A boycott will only ever inconvenience YOU, the consumer. It's like my friend who is boycotting poultry because of the industry's treatment of chickens. I told my friend that unless he tells the chicken farmers he's boycotting them, they won't ever know.

Perhaps if the rabble were willing to send some politely-worded letters to some McClan chiefs, urging THEM as McClan chiefs to write some sharply-worded letters to selected members of McDonald's senior management, that'll probably amount to more than boycotting cheeseburgers until Lord-knows-when...

Yeah, well I've been boycotting McDonalds for some time now because I just think their products are garbage. But this makes me feel more political about it!

[davedove]

If that's the case, then it IS corporate bullying. A common prefix like "Mc" is not their intellectual property. It existed centuries before their corporation did.

This would be like O'Reilly's Auto Parts suddenly objecting to anyone else who had a business or organization that started with "O". They neither own that prefix, nor would they have any moral authority (I would say legal authority, but sadly morality and legality are seldom the same) to tell anyone else they can't use it. The very idea is so absurd, I can't believe that McDonalds has the audacity to try it. They've lost their common sense in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

It's not so absurd a notion. Suppose some Scottish-themed restaurant started marketing a product and called it a McSteak. If you told someone you went out and had a McSteak, they may assume you picked it up at McDonalds just because of the name.

Now, I'll grant you that this case isn't talking about a food item, but that is the principle.

[lethearen]

Back in 2001 the term "McJob" turned up in the Oxford dictionary. It'd been around for a couple decades beforehand, but never really made official. It's definition is "an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects". A few years ago, McDonald's took on a battle to change the definition to "a job that is stimulating, rewarding and offers skills that last a lifetime" on the grounds that it denegrated the company and its employees.

They didn't win

[Zardoz]

It's kind of funny that McDonalds wants to own "Mc" so bad, since that prefix is generally appied as a reference to McDonalds to indicate a socio-political viewpoint critical to things many perceive as tawdry or cheap displays or products of consumerism, McJob, McDad, McWorld, McMansions, McFashion, etc...

No doubt they are within their rights, but one would hope they loose in the court of public opinion.

[Tobus]

If you told someone you went out and had a McSteak, they may assume you picked it up at McDonalds just because of the name.

So... just because people associate it with McDonalds (even though it's a name they've never used) makes it theirs?

That's like saying that since Walmart employees wear blue vests, if the public begins to associate wearing a blue vest with Walmart, they suddenly have a right to 'own' the wearing of a blue vest and challenge other peoples' right to wear one. I think "absurd" fits very well.

The underlying point here is that McDonald's has never used the name "McFest". Trying to claim that name AFTER someone else started using it, when it's not a name they came up with on their own, is a bit like the proverbial dog in the manger.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

If that's the case, then it IS corporate bullying. A common prefix like "Mc" is not their intellectual property. It existed centuries before their corporation did.

This would be like O'Reilly's Auto Parts suddenly objecting to anyone else who had a business or organization that started with "O". They neither own that prefix, nor would they have any moral authority (I would say legal authority, but sadly morality and legality are seldom the same) to tell anyone else they can't use it. The very idea is so absurd, I can't believe that McDonalds has the audacity to try it. They've lost their common sense in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

You're joking, right? If not, and you are okay with corporate identity theft, what's your position on the theft of personal identity?

I think your argument-- especially the bit about O'Rielly's Auto Parts-- is based on a less than perfect understanding of intellectual property law in the USA and how it is designed to protect all businesses from unscrupulous usurpation of their identity or intellectual property, or the passing off of products, goods, or services by other parties using their name or trademark.

Like it or not, and for reasons that neither you or I may be fully aware of, McDonalds feels it is in their best interests to challenge the request of a company to trademark "McFest". They are not challenging the use of the "Mc", but the the entire word. Now it may be that the challenge is based on the fact that "McFest" is only one letter removed from "McFeast", and if that's the case their position is understandable.

While it is true that "words" are in the public domain, when those words are arranged in unique or specific ways, they do become subject to legal protection as the property of the person or corporation who first arranged or combined those words for intellectual or commercial purposes. The law allows that these words form an incorporeal property-- an intellectual property or "idea"-- and allows the owner of this intellectual property or idea the unrestricted and exclusive use to develop and expand that "idea". In other words only the original "author" of the idea can expand it in new directions, and no one may reasonably prevent him from so doing.

Whether or not "McFest" transgresses the intellectual property rights of McDonalds remains to be seen. That McDonalds chooses to protect it's rights can hardly be characterized as bullying, any more than you could characterize Ms. McCluskey's right to defend her trademark against all comers as "bullying", should she be granted her trademark.