Search for:
It’s sort of nice when the underdog wins. Of course, something like that really depends on your perspective.
The biggest example of underdog victory is David and Goliath. This is a great and inspiring story ... unless you’re a Philistine, in which case its probably remembered as something completely not cool. I’m not sure if there were a lot of bookies around in the biblical times, but if there were, the payout had to be pretty significant. Vicious towering giant versus little guy with a slingshot, I’m sure most of the smart money was on the vicious towering giant. It’d be like taking a peewee football team over the Steelers and giving the Steelers the points. It’s not necessarily the smart bet to go with the little guy, but ever so often it works out.
The most recent case of this would be McDonald’s versus McCurry. It’s the fast food giant versus ... well, versus some fella from Malaysia who has a curry restaurant. This fight wasn’t a lucky shot to the temple that ended quickly. It took the guy eight years in court but he finally walked away victorious, victorious and most likely broke as a bastard. McDonald’s didn’t cotton to a restaurant besides them using the prefix “Mc” so they sued him, repeatedly. Well, the case is finally settled once and for all, and the owner, Mr. A.M.S.P. Suppiah, walked away with the name of his restaurant intact. He also gets his legal costs paid by McDonald’s, so he’s not broke after all, even though I bet it was touch and go there for awhile.
McCurry is a small restaurant and the “Mc” in McCurry stands for “Malaysian Curry,” which is, oddly enough, more than the “Mc” in McDonald’s stands for. They serve things like chicken curry, fish head curry, naan and biryani. As far as I know, McDonald’s doesn’t serve anything like that. Even if they did, they would have it formed and pressed into something that looked almost nothing like the original dish in the first place, so I have a hard time seeing what the big freaking deal was.
I was surprised to learn, however, that McDonald’s has 137 restaurants in Malaysia.
I suppose they believe that people could become confused and think they were getting something they didn’t expect. Even that sounds a little shady though. “Wow, I don’t know when they started putting fish heads on the Big Mac but I have to say, that really dresses it up a little bit and maybe I’m wrong but I could have sworn I tasted something I never had at a McDonald’s before, what do you call it? Oh yeah, some sort of flavor. Very nice.”
I enjoyed this story only because the little guy won. Personally, I’ve got nothing against McDonald’s. I’d say I eat there about five or ten times a year, and each time, it is pretty much exactly what I think it will be. I’ve got nothing against McCurry either, though I’m fairly certain if I ate there I would be crying in the bathroom for five or ten days afterwards. So, if anything, I should be on McDonald’s side, but the lawsuit seemed like they were getting a little too big for their britches and it was sort of nice to have them experience the spicy taste of defeat for that reason alone.
I mean, geez Louise, the prefix “Mc” shouldn’t be something that belongs exclusively to anyone, no matter how many lawyers they happen to have. It’s a slippery slope. Pretty soon they could have lawsuits all over Scotland making people change their last names. Children couldn’t sing a certain song about a farmer with a variety of animals anymore. The biggest landmark in St. Louis could even be considered to be partially infringing on their golden arches trademark. What makes it even worse is that the founder of McDonald’s wasn’t even freaking named McDonald. Who the hell is going to eat at a place called Kroc’s? I don’t think you should just be able to come up with some sort of combination of letters and have it be exclusively yours.
It’s sort of like when Paris Hilton tries to copyright the phrase “That’s hot.” Fine, I’m not arguing that she may say it more than anyone else in the world, but that shouldn’t necessarily mean it belongs only to her. It’s a pretty common phrase, and the rest of us may actually need to use it from time to time.
Hopefully we don’t need to use it in the self-important pathetic way she needs to use it, but still. Do I have to pay her a nickel every time I touch a plate in a Mexican restaurant? Do I have to come up with another phrase every time I take that first sip off of a coffee?
The world is a pretty big place, and it’s getting smaller and bigger all at the same time. I’m not sure anyone can just say something is exclusively theirs anymore. McDonald’s, and everyone else, should probably chill their shit out for a little bit. It’s one thing if people are really confusing McDonald’s with McCurry, but I really doubt if that was the case. They were just trying to flex their muscle and they ended up getting hit in the head with a rock. Sure, it was eight years later, but it was still sort of worth the wait.
Sound Off
Last post: Oct. 2, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Richard Baron (unregistered user) said on Oct. 2, 2009 at 6:44 pm:
The recent McDonald's v. McCurry ruling is not surprising. Just by the three main DuPont factors alone, appearance, sound and meaning, these two marks are arguably not confusingly similar. Add to that the difference in menus, and the difference in trade dress, and you have a pretty strong case for McCurry, which the panel seemingly accepted. The letters "Mc" cannot be totally, exclusively owned by one entity worldwide. And it's not as if people are going to mix up McCurry with McDonalds. Now, if McCurry used the golden arches, had a clown and similar characters associated with the restaurant, that would be problematic. Those elements were not present in this case. On our site, http://www.trademarksprotected.com, we help with these trademark issues and any trademark questions.