The Mc"Clans" are In Danger

[O'Callaghan]

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 ......

Ironically, a McDonald COULD have a McDonald Fest, and they could do nothing to stop them. Trademarking it would be more difficult, though. This story is ONLY about a trademark opposition, based on likelihood of confusion (the legal standard on which it will be judged). I agree that McD are throwing their weight around, though. What they are doing is not necessary.

Disclaimer: I am a patent agent, and in the US, patents agents cannot practice trademark law (although they can in every other country AFAIK). You are not my clent and the above is not a legal opinion.

[Tobus]

McDonald's isn't objecting to the use of the term 'McFest'. They're objecting to the attempted trademark of the term 'McFest'

But WHY?

The logical conclusion is that they want to reserve that name for themselves if they should choose to use it in the future, which leads one to wonder why they didn't just go ahead and trademark it themselves. It seems to me that the time-tested rule of "you snooze, you lose" should apply. They didn't trademark it themselves. She wants to trademark it now for her own legitimate purposes. By protesting her trademark but not her use of it, they are essentially saying that she should not have the exclusive rights to that name, and that somehow McDonald's should reserve the right to use it too. Even though they have never previously claimed it. It's much too late for them to berate people for not sharing!

It's more than a little hypocritical for them to snap up all the trademarks they have on specific "Mc" names but then object when someone else wants to use one that they haven't claimed. If they wanted that name for future use, they should have trademarked it. If not, let the first claimant have it. That's how adults act. McDonald's is acting like children.

They may yet get away with it, legally. But ethically, they lose.

[The Celtic Gypsy]

Here is an update on the name game with Lauren McClusky's McFest.

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/0...cfest-chari%2F

Clan McEvil here on the XMarks had better beware if McDonalds (the burger meister) finds out about it!

[james a. husky]

I wonder why they call it the "Big 'Mac'" instead of the "Big 'Mc'"???

If the producer is called "'Mc'Donalds", wouldn't a "Big Mc" be more appropriate?

Perhaps it's the corporation's attempt to embrace "multi-culturalism"

Maybe not!

Jim aka kiltiemon

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Perhaps those who thought this was about a charity fund-raiser would care to comment on Ms. McCluskey's trademark filing for "McFest" to be used as a record label?

[Farlander]

McFest concerts have raised more than $30,000 for Special Olympics. A McFest record label to record and sell McFest concert music for the benefit of the Special Olympics seems plausible.

[NewGuise]

And now this story:

The chef at a First Nations food pavilion at the Winter Olympics says he had to rewrite his menu to purge the word "burger," after the McDonald's chain -- an Olympics sponsor -- objected.

Chef Andrew George, who created the menu for the Four Host First Nations' pavilion, said organizers had to rewrite one of the menu items -- a trio of bison burgers -- after a complaint from the Golden Arches.

"McDonald's is a big corporate sponsor at the Olympics and it turns out they were really touchy about us calling any food 'burgers,' " says George, who has published a cookbook and is working on a TV show.

"So we're serving these three little bison patties that now we're calling sliders, or bannockwiches, with sauteed wild mushrooms and Saltspring Island goat cheese between bannock rounds."

[MacKay71]

Is this silly or is it just me?

[Tobus]

Perhaps those who thought this was about a charity fund-raiser would care to comment on Ms. McCluskey's trademark filing for "McFest" to be used as a record label?

I don't see how it changes anything. She's still obviously not trying to horn in on McDonald's market (unless they've been selling records all along and I didn't know it ).

As long as she is using the name for a legitimate business that is not trying to use the name for fraudulent purposes, what does it matter whether it's for a charity, record label, skydiving company, or underwear label?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Two things-- first, everyone seemed to be upset because they thought McDonalds (who gives over $1M to the Special Olympics) was trying to prevent Ms. McCluskey from fund raising by objecting to her use of the word "McFest". 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.

The second thing people may not be aware of is that a trademark can cover more than just a mere word-- the type face, and the colour are also usually part of the registered mark. Volkswagen's "VW" mark is described as being a specific type face (helvetica) and a colour (blue) and enclosed within a line of the same colour. I'm sure McDonald's trademarks are as carefully described, and that when they saw Ms. McCluskey's request for trademark they felt it was in breach of their pre-existing rights and filed their objection.

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.

Perhaps when Ms. McCluskey returns from her cruise she will have some further explanation of events.