FOLLOW US

The European Union's General Court on Wednesday ruled against McDonald's, stripping the fast-food giant of its right to use the "Big Mac" trademark on chicken sandwiches in the EU. The court determined that McDonald's had failed to prove it had used the trademark for poultry products in recent years, leading to the decision. The ruling came after Supermac's, a smaller Irish fast-food chain, persuaded the court to revoke McDonald's rights to use the "Big Mac" mark on poultry goods and certain fast-food preparation services. McDonald's, which had registered its Big Mac trademark in the EU in 1996, was unable to provide sufficient evidence showing genuine use of the mark on chicken sandwiches over the past five years. According to the court, McDonald's evidence did not demonstrate the quantity, regularity, or recurrence of the distribution of chicken sandwiches under the "Big Mac" mark. As a result, the court concluded that McDonald's could not prove real commercial use of the contested mark in connection with chicken sandwiches. EU trademark laws stipulate that a trademark owner can lose protection if it cannot show genuine use within a continuous period of five years. The court's decision highlighted that genuine use must align with the essential functions of the trademark, such as indicating the origin of the goods. Supermac's initially challenged the trademark in 2017, after McDonald's prevented it from entering the EU market by arguing that there would be confusion between McDonald's Big Mac sandwich and the Supermac's name. While the EU court's Cancellation Division initially upheld Supermac's complaint, the Board of Appeal later allowed McDonald's to retain the trademark for some goods and services, including chicken sandwiches. Supermac's then requested the General Court to intervene and revoke all trademark protections except for "meat sandwiches." Despite McDonald's attempts to show that it had used the Big Mac slogan on chicken sandwiches in the EU, the General Court found the evidence insufficient. The pictures provided by McDonald's did not demonstrate sales volume, duration of use, or frequency of the sign's appearance. The ruling also affected McDonald's broader protection for "foods prepared from poultry products," as the Board of Appeal had relied on the evidence related to chicken sandwiches to maintain these protections. Additionally, the court revoked McDonald's protections over services associated with operating and supporting a fast-food restaurant, stating that the evidence provided did not relate to these specific services.