Key Facts

The EGC found that McDonald's had not demonstrated genuine use of the mark for five years.
Supermac's and McDonald's are involved in a legal dispute over the Big Mac trademark.
The trademark was registered in favor of McDonald's in 1996; Supermac's applied to revoke the trademark in 2017.
The EUIPO has partially granted Supermac's application.
The court overturned the EUIPO 's decision and further restricted protection for McDonald's.
Evidence of the use of the contested mark for certain goods and services was insufficient.
McDonald's was unable to prove that the trademark was genuinely used for the services in question.

The EGC found that McDonald’s had not demonstrated genuine use for certain goods and services for an uninterrupted period of five years

Supermac’s and McDonald’s, an Irish and an American fast-food chain, are involved in a legal dispute over the Big Mac union trademark.

This trademark was registered in 1996 in favor of McDonald’s. In 2017, Supermac’s filed an application for revocation of the trademark for certain goods and services. The mark had not been put to genuine use for those goods and services in the Union for an uninterrupted period of five years.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has partially granted this application.

However, it upheld the protection afforded to McDonald’s by the contested mark for, inter alia, meals made from meat and poultry products and for meat and chicken sandwiches and for services provided in connection with or incidental to the operation and franchising of restaurants and other businesses and establishments providing food and drink for direct consumption and for drive-through facilities and for the preparation of take-away food.

In its judgment, the General Court overturns the EUIPO’s decision and partially amends it by further restricting the protection granted to McDonald’s by the contested trademark.

It finds that McDonald’s has not provided evidence that the contested mark has been put to genuine use in relation to the goods “chicken sandwiches”, the goods “food made from poultry products” and services “provided in connection with or incidental to the operation and franchising of restaurants and other businesses and establishments providing food and drink for direct consumption and for drive-through facilities; preparation of take-away food”.

The evidence submitted by McDonald’s does not contain any information on the extent of use of the mark for these goods, in particular as regards the quantities sold, the duration of the period of use and the frequency of use.

Therefore, the evidence taken into account by the EUIPO does not allow a finding of genuine use of the contested mark for those goods.

Furthermore, the evidence submitted by McDonald’s does not establish that the contested mark was used for “services provided in connection with or incidental to the operation and franchising of restaurants and other businesses and establishments providing food and beverages for direct consumption and for drive-through facilities; take-out food preparation”.

Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.

Tags: Eu Intellectual property Judgment