lately, About fast food giant McDonald's and the Australian fast food CompanyHungry Jack'sThe news is full of intellectual property cases.

FACTS

Hungry Jack'sSell a product called "Big Jack" (Big Jack) s hamburger, If you don't think there's enough beef in this burger, The company also supplies larger ones "Giant Jack" (Mega Jack) Hamburg. McDonald's thinksBig JackandMega JackTrademark with its two main registered trademarksBig MacandMega MacThere are confounding similarities, declareHungry Jack'sThe advertisement is misleading, So McDonald's suedHungry Jack'sInfringement of its trademark rights.

Is the intent to confuse or pure "Have a thick skin" ?

At the hearing, Hungry JackAdmitted the marketing officer, When selecting a name "Cheeky ingredients" , He said: "I know the name is likely to be taken as a deliberate mockery of McDonald's. "

Australian "taunt"

The marketing officer added, Of this nature "taunt" It's common in the fast food industry. Of course, It's also a reminder of something, When talking about the game of cricket, Australian vs "taunt" It can be said that "Be on one's game" . For the convenience of readers who refuse to participate in any sports games measured in days rather than minutes, "taunt" Be described as "An athlete insults another athlete during a game, To provoke the other person's behavior" .

Decision of the court——No intent to mislead

Judge Burley held that, This will not cause consumer confusion, And noted that there was no evidence of deception or confusion. The judge pointed out: "I don't thinkHungry Jack'sUsed by companies to mislead consumersBig JackThis name. "

Burley also pointed to a recent judgment in Australia, namelySelf-Care IP Holdings Pty LtdvAllergan Australia Pty Ltdcase, The Court stated in that decision, Registered trademark (Here isBig Mac) Reputation and evaluation of another trademark (Here isBig Jack) Similarity independent.

Simple echo

The judge classified the case as a case in which the Australian company wanted to use a "Big MAC" The distant but still markedly different name competes with McDonald's. The same appliesMega JackandMega Mac.

Applicable inspection standards

The court applied the hypothetical consumer test, namely "Won't base yourself on McDonald's orHungry Jack'sOr experience with any of its brands to prejudge any trademark" Consumer of.

The judge held that, The above trademarks are not confusingly similar, because "Big" The term is descriptive, So it's relatively unimportant, whileMacandJackThe two names differ in pronunciation, JackIt's a well-known name, whileMacIs an uncommon name or abbreviation. The judge held that, Consumers are more likely to recall differences in names, He citedHarryandBarry, RyanandBrianandRonaldandDonaldEt al.

Questions about consumer law

In addition to trademark infringement compensation, There is also the issue of misleading advertising and consumer law. This is related toHungry Jack'sClaimed in the advertisementBig JackA hamburger is better than a Big MAC "more25%Australian beef" Relate to. McDonald's says, This is a breach of Australian consumer law. Expert confirmation, Hungry Jack'sThe beef in a hamburger "obvious" Less than advertised25%, So McDonald's claim was upheld by the court. (Be compiled fromwww. mondaq. com)

TRANSLATORS: Wu Xian　proofread: Wang Dan



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.