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”.
