Friday, September 05, 2008 The McDonald’s Cases By Clint Fabiosa & Andrew Ong I protect
RECOGNIZING the international use of the McDonald’s trademark, “Big Mac,” the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the local user’s trademark “Big Mak” caters mainly to the low-income group, declaring that “the likelihood of confusion of business remains since the low-income group might be led to believe that the “Big Mak” hamburgers are the low-end hamburgers marketed by petitioners (McDonald).
Further, the High Court ruled that “the use of the “Big Mak” mark on non-hamburger food products cannot excuse their infringement of petitioners’ registered mark; otherwise registered marks will lose their protection under the law.
The registered trademark owner may use his mark on the same or similar products, in different segments of the market, and
at different price levels depending on variations of the products for specific segments of the market.
In a more recent case involving a local applicant for the trademark registration for “MacJoy,” the Court ruled in favor of McDonald’s despite the fact that the local applicant used the mark prior to McDonald’s.
The “M” and “Mc” features of the McDonald’s marks were considered dominant and protected. (McDonald’s Cases: G.R. No. 143993, Aug. 18, 2004; and G.R. No. 166115, Feb 2, 2007)
