McDonald’s, the fast-food giant synonymous with golden arches and burgers, has recently found itself in hot water on the trademark front. Following a major legal defeat in the European Union (EU) this past June, McDonald’s is now facing yet another trademark challenge in the United States.
The EU lawsuit involved the iconic “Big Mac” trademark. Irish fast-food chain Supermac’s successfully argued that McDonald’s had not demonstrated continuous and genuine use of the “Big Mac” for chicken sandwiches within the EU in the 5 years preceding the case. This allowed Supermac’s to register their own trademark, effectively stripping McDonald’s of “Big Mac” exclusive use for its poultry fast food products in Europe.
In the United States home goods entrepreneur Jacob McVay filed for trademark registration of “McVaze” for a range of household goods, including razors, cooking utensils, and laundry drying racks. McDonald’s responded swiftly, filing an opposition against McVay’s trademark application, arguing that the public has now become accustomed to marks combining “Mc” with a common word for a broad range of goods and services to be uniquely associated with the McDonald’s brand. The crux of McDonald’s argument hinges on the potential for consumer confusion and trademark dilution. McDonald’s argued that the “Mc” prefix in “McVaze” creates a too-similar association with their own established trademarks, diluting and diminishing the distinctiveness of the McDonald’s brand even if McVay’s business is not a direct competitor of McDonald’s because it does not directly participate in the fast food market.
McDonald’s has a strong track record of successfully defending trademarks with the “Mc” prefix or similar prefixes for food and restaurant-related products. It has been vigilant and successful in litigating against non-food products and services as well. For example, in 1993, it won a court order preventing a dentist in New York from selling services under the mark, “McDental.” Again, in 2016, McDonald’s triumphed over a Singaporean company attempting to register a trademark for “MACCOFFEE” in the EU.
However, “McVaze” seems like a more personal branding choice for Mr. McVay’s entire home goods business. Furthermore, the products Mr. McVay’s trademark also falls outside of McDonald’s principal market (fast food), which may weaken the argument of direct competition. Additionally, “Vaze” itself is relatively unique and was created solely for use by the brand, which may provide the “McVaze” mark with the “inherent distinctiveness” quality required for fanciful trademarks.
The fate of the “McVaze” trademark now rests with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). McVay has until July 14, 2024 to respond to McDonald’s opposition. This case highlights the ongoing tug-of-war between multinational companies protecting their established brands and attempts by smaller businesses to build their brands. The outcome of the “McVaze” dispute will be closely watched, with implications for trademark law and the delicate balance between brand protection and fostering a fair marketplace.