McDonald's vs McCurry

McDonald's tastes defeat after fight with Malaysian restaurant McCurry


Associated Press in Putrajaya
guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday 8 September 2009






The owners of McCurry said the initials stand for 'Malaysian Chicken' curry. Photograph: Bazuki Muhammad/Reuters

The fast food giant McDonald's has lost an eight-year battle to prevent a Malaysian restaurant McCurry from using the "Mc" prefix in its name.

The legal fight finally ended in a precedent-setting judgment by Malaysia's highest court. The federal court ruled today that McDonald's cannot appeal against another court's verdict that had allowed McCurry to use "Mc" in its name. The owner says McCurry, which serves Indian food, is an abbreviation for Malaysian Chicken Curry.

The ruling by a three-member panel ends all legal avenues for McDonald's to protect its name from what it said was a trademark infringement.

"On the basis of unanimous decision, our view is that McDonald's plea to carry the case forward has no merit," the chief judge, Arifin Zakaria, said. "It is unfortunate that we have to dismiss the application with costs."

McDonald's will have to pay 10,000 ringgit (£1,725) to McCurry, a popular restaurant in Jalan Ipoh, on the edge of Kuala Lumpur's downtown area. McDonald's lawyers refused to comment, except to say the company will abide by the judgment.

McCurry's lawyer, Sri Devi Nair, said the ruling means McDonald's does not have a monopoly on the prefix "Mc" and other restaurants could use it as long as they distinguish their food from McDonald's. "This is a precedent for everyone to follow," he said.

An appeal court panel had ruled in favour of McCurry in April this year when it overturned a 2006 high court ruling that had upheld McDonald's contention.

Arifin said McDonald's lawyers were unable to point out faults in the appeal court judgment, which had said there was no evidence to show that McCurry was passing off McDonald's business as its own. McDonald's asked the federal court for permission to appeal against that decision but was denied today.

"We are very much relieved. We hope to expand. This is what we wanted to do from the beginning and we were stalled for eight years," AMSP Suppiah, the owner of McCurry, said.

The appeal court said McCurry's signboard has white and grey letters on a red background with a picture of a smiling chicken, in contrast to McDonald's red and yellow "M" logo. McCurry also serves only Indian food, not competing with McDonald's western menu, the court said.

*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

What's in a name? McDonald's defeated in 'McCurry' case

Matthew Weaver
Tuesday 8 September 2009
guardian.co.uk

Fast food giant loses eight-year legal battle against Malaysian curry restaurant

The fast food giant McDonald's has lost a David v Goliath legal battle against a Malaysian curry restaurant which used the term 'McCurry'.

The eight-year legal dispute ended when Malaysia's highest court ruled in favour of the curry house, in Kuala Lumpur.

After the trademark battle, the federal court rejected a McDonald's Corporation appeal against an earlier judgement that had allowed the curry restaurant to use the 'Mc' prefix. McDonald's was also ordered to pay costs.

The owner of McCurry, which includes fish-head curry on its menu, successfully argued that the name stood for Malaysian chicken curry.

McDonald's gets very touchy when it feels its name is being taken in vain, and once attempted to force the Oxford English Dictionary to change its definition of the word 'McJob'.

However, the US company's efforts to protect its name have sometimes backfired.

In the mid-90s, it tried force a restaurant called McDonald's in Kingston, Jamaica, to change its name to avoid confusion.

But the restaurant, which sold curried goat and jerk chicken, won the case and a Jamaican judge ordered the US McDonald's to call itself Golden Arches.

Then there was the 15-year UK McLibel saga over a critical pamphlet by two British activists.

Dave Morris and Helen Steel, a postman and an unemployed gardener, secured a partial victory against McDonald's, resulting in embarrassing media coverage of the fast food giant.

Lawyers must be lovin' it.