Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login
 
A close analysis of news, current affairs, politics and social trends..... This is the world as you've never known it...Want to wake up with the Critic ?

A Mac Attack

September 11th 2009 05:38


Malaysia’s High Court decision this week to allow the Suppiahs to keep operating their Indian restaurant in Kuala Lumpur under the name McCurry may seem like a great win for the little guy but is it?

The decision may restore our faith in the legal system and a belief that big guys don’t always win. On the other hand, McCurry owners might just get some of their own medicine because the win could open the floodgates for Mc-everything in Malaysia.


The court case in which McDonalds argued that the McCurry owners had breached trademark law by using the prefix “Mc” has been going on since 2002 after the business had been operating for just over a year. McDonalds Malaysia won the first round but McCurry owners, the Suppiahs, fought hard and took the case further.

Seven years later, the Suppiahs won the right to operate their business under the name of McCurry in Malaysia’s highest court. In its ruling, the court decided that McDonalds propriety claim on the prefix “Mc” did not apply to the Indian restaurant that only sells curry and in no way resembles the food sold in McDonalds restaurants.

The Suppiahs have always maintained that the “Mc” in McCurry is an abbreviation for “Malaysian Chicken Curry” one of their original dishes and is in no way associated with McDonalds.

McDonalds have operated in Malaysia since 1982, and even anyone who prefers local business over multi-nationals would have to agree that the “Mc” in McCurry was a deliberate rip off of an established franchise. The sign even uses the same yellow as McDonalds.


McCurry owners, the Suppiahs, even admit the intention of starting the business was to build a franchise throughout Malaysia. The lengthy court case has prevented them from doing that until now.

The fight has been both good and bad for the Suppiahs. The court case gave them a lot of publicity and with it a lot of customers, including American tourists and it put them on the international map. It also cost them in legal fees and stopped them from expanding into a franchise all this time.

Now they can follow their dream but the decision opens the door for any business in Malaysia to use the prefix “Mc” or “Mac” so plenty of business operators can now use the Suppiah’s win for their own enterprises. The Suppiahs may be celebrating now but they may not have anticipated the probable business competition the decision has likely provoked.

The battle over “Mc” or “Mac” prefixes for business names is not new. In London back in 2001, McChina Wok Away, won a battle with McDonalds to keep its business name and in 2004 a Singapore firm won the right to use its brand names MacNoodles, MacTea and MacChocolate.

The Suppiahs may be celebrating but will it really do them well in the long run?

We will see.



Sourced: www.time.com
Image Credit: Telegraph.co.uk


46
Vote
Add To: del.icio.us Digg Furl Spurl.net StumbleUpon Yahoo


   
subscribe to this blog 


   

   


Comments
5 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by Morgan Bell

September 13th 2009 08:59
yeah if it said M. C. Curry rather than Mc Curry i might be more inclined to believe them

Comment by Janet Collins

September 13th 2009 09:15

Comment by Wilson Pon

September 17th 2009 13:19
Seriously, Janet. I thought this case is really ridiculous. Go figure, if McDonalds are accusing McCurry for illegally using the word, "Mc", then why not McDonalds sue those people, who have the surname with "Mc" or "Mac"? Isn't it will make them a multi Billionaire? lol

Comment by Janet Collins

September 17th 2009 13:57
Thanks for your opinion Wilson. I actually thought McDonald's were in the right here. In trademark law, if your surname was McDonald then you could use the name McDonalds but if you are ripping off their trademark - well, they have a case.

If the Suppiahs name was actually McCurry then no problem - but a fast food outlet that was attempting to turn into a franchise?

I would question that.

Thanks for the comment.

Comment by Richard Baron

September 29th 2009 22:34
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, Really Long Link help with these trademark issues and any trademark questions.


Add A Comment

To create a fully formatted comment please click here.


CLICK HERE TO LOGIN | CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Name or Orble Tag
Home Page (optional)
Comments
Bold Italic Underline Strikethrough Separator Left Center Right Separator Quote Insert Link Insert Email
Notify me of replies
Your Email Address
(optional)
(required for reply notification)
Submit
More Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
378 Posts dating from November 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
0

Janet Collins's Blogs

5778 Vote(s)
237 Comment(s)
32 Post(s)
144 Vote(s)
1 Comment(s)
1 Post(s)
Moderated by Janet Collins
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]