The Mc"Clans" are In Danger

**MacMillan of Rathdown** · 3rd February 10, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by The Guy in the Kilt at UC

When things get complex, I try to make a diagram or an equation to figure everything out.

This won't work if you are dating two girls at the same time.

If one really wants to know what's happening, and how it all works, I'd suggest they take a course in Intellectual Property law. Not only will they learn about copyright and trademark, but by extension they will gain a better understanding of the "Law of Arms" as it is applied in today's world.

**The Guy in the Kilt at UC** · 3rd February 10, 12:20 PM

Aha, now there's an idea. Opinions of these observations are meaningless if they are developed in ignorance. I've come across some very simple forms of intellectual property law when I was an artist. We didn't study it in great detail other than to know what our rights were. We were taught the changes to copyright in 1972 so that we knew how to protect our work. I imagine it was a pretty cutthroat kind of world before these laws.

Here's an interesting thought: Suppose McDonald's doesn't not want to be seen as possible support of a particular charity. Sure the Special Olympics sound great, but what if some other organization (with a bad reputation like a hate group) were holding a charity for a scholarship or something? Of course, this isn't the case. Sometimes my mind just wanders like that.

Maybe I'll just go read the news article, just to get some facts insetad of conjuring some wild fantasies.

**St. Amish** · 3rd February 10, 12:29 PM

I never liked McDonalds, even as a kid.

I don't need a reason not to eat there, but now I have one.

**The Guy in the Kilt at UC** · 3rd February 10, 12:30 PM

Did anyone actually read the article? I can't say I'm not guilty. She isn't getting sued by McDonald's. She tried to file for the trademark, and naturally McDonald's challenged her right to register. Now she's spending $5000 to fight for the name. That money should just go to the charity, and life should just go on.

Well it will for me.

**Tobus** · 3rd February 10, 12:50 PM

poor people = good
rich people = bad

Some people, sadly, take that simplistic approach. Or the opposite one, where rich = good and poor = bad.

Since you quoted me in your reply (and I'm not sure what point you were trying to make in relation to mine), I will say that my approach to issues like these are based on principle. That principle generally being that use of force to impose one's will on others is bad. The use of force - and let's not kid ourselves: law is force - should only be in defense of one's natural rights. And in this case, I do quite clearly see McDonald's acting as the aggressor. They are claiming a right to a name that they never claimed before. They are using force (law) against this girl when she's done nothing to violate their property (real or imagined). In my reply that you quoted, this principle would hold true if the roles were reversed.

**ThinBlueLine** · 3rd February 10, 01:21 PM

Hey all,

Mayhaps Clan MacDonald should file suit against McDonald's.

**Santa Kona** · 3rd February 10, 02:12 PM

Greed sheer greed thats all.

**berserkbishop** · 3rd February 10, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by The Guy in the Kilt at UC

Did anyone actually read the article? I can't say I'm not guilty. She isn't getting sued by McDonald's. She tried to file for the trademark, and naturally McDonald's challenged her right to register. Now she's spending $5000 to fight for the name. That money should just go to the charity, and life should just go on.

Well it will for me.

Thanks for this clear and concise post! I agree completely and couldnt have said it better. Has anyone actually bothered to read this article?

**fluter** · 4th February 10, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by berserkbishop

Has anyone actually bothered to read this article?

Well, yes. We thought y'all had, too.

Some of us even know enough about IP rights to know what we don't know.

What I don't know is measured in Sagans.

**wvpiper** · 5th February 10, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.