The Mc"Clans" are In Danger

**MacBean** · 29th January 10, 09:23 PM

I think I'll register the letters of the alphabet. No one else can use them without my permission.

I have disliked this outfit (and most chain stores that infest our roadways) for decades, but they seem like small potatoes compared to the mega-chains like Wally and more recently Wegmans.

To be fair, they are not blocking her use of McFest for charity at all, just blocking her trademarking it as they already own that trademark. I can't fault them for that.

**MacKay71** · 30th January 10, 07:47 AM

If they put "Mac" intstead of "Mc" in front of it, would there still be a problem?

**berserkbishop** · 30th January 10, 08:23 AM

I dont really see this as corporate bullying. I have no love for McDonalds (my first job in high school), but I dont see them as an evil corporation picking on this girl. They have tried to be more than fair about the entire thing. I think she needs to stop being a publicity hound and just drop the trademark request. This entire thing screams of publicity stunt to me and I dont really see why people are so fired up about it. I guess we like to always support the underdog, but this is just another case of public supporting the little guy against the "evil corporation," despite the fact the legally and in my opinion morally, the "evil corporation" has been very generous in their offers to help fix the problem. Just my opinion FLAME AWAY!

Bishop

**Tobus** · 31st January 10, 11:38 AM

To be fair, they are not blocking her use of McFest for charity at all, just blocking her trademarking it as they already own that trademark. I can't fault them for that.

But that's the thing... they don't own the trademark on the name "McFest". They own trademarks on other "Mc" names, but not ALL of them. This action of theirs - trying to block her trademark - is an attempt to wrangle ownership over ALL "Mc" names. Even ones they hadn't thought of yet. They don't want to actually trademark all "Mc" names; they just want to stop anyone else from using them, and that's pretty poor sportsmanship on their part.

I think she needs to stop being a publicity hound and just drop the trademark request.

Being a publicity hound is how she raises money for charity. I can't fault her for that.

**berserkbishop** · 31st January 10, 02:13 PM

Raising money for charity by putting it in front of a crowd is one thing, but getting people fired up about a "David and Goliath" situation is hardly about her raising money for the charity. Apparently the charity did just fine before this debacle.

**MacLowlife** · 31st January 10, 04:56 PM

A while back, someone mentioned SCOTLAND PA, which is a great movie. The screen credits list William Shakespeare for the story. You have Christopher Walken as Inspector MacDuff, you have an Italian guy named Banconi, shortened to Banco, and you have the McBeths, a nice guy and his ambitious wife. They both work for a guy named Duncan, who used to be in the doughnut business. McBeth invents the drive through window, among other things. If you enjoy the music of Bad Company, or 70s Camaros, you will love it.

**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.

**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.