In a recent decision, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) has limited the scope of a trademark held by McDonald’s Inc. (“McDonald’s”) over the prefix “Mc”.
In 2012, McDonald’s successfully registered a trademark over the “Mc” prefix for various foods, food products, non-alcoholic beverages, and restaurant services. Supermac’s, a fast food brand based in Ireland, argued that McDonald’s had not genuinely used its trademark for the continuous five year period required under EU law. To counter this argument and prove use of its mark, McDonald’s submitted twenty annexes of evidence from its various locations demonstrating that it had sold McNuggets, McChicken, McMuffin, McFlurry and Big Mac products in the EU.
While the EUIPO found that McDonald’s had genuinely used the “Mc” prefix for chicken nuggets and various sandwiches, protecting McDonald’s exclusive use of the terms McNuggets, McRib, McChicken and so on, it determined that McDonald’s had not established genuine use of the “Mc” prefix for some other goods over which it was registered. Specifically, the EUIPO concluded that McDonald’s had not proved genuine use of the mark for non-alcoholic beverages and syrups or for restaurant services, nor had it proven genuine use of the mark for foods prepared from meat and poultry products or biscuits, bread, cake, coffee and other desserts.
As a result of the EUIPO’s decision, McDonald’s no longer has an exclusive right to sell “Mc”-labelled coffee, tea, desserts, and related goods. Further, McDonald’s will not be able to prevent other restaurant services businesses from using the “Mc” prefix as it relates to goods that are not protected by the narrowed “Mc” trade-mark.
Author: Duncan Lurie
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@thisisnando
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…