Why was McDonald’s “BIG MAC” trade mark revoked in Europe?
Introduction
In the European Union Intellectual Property Office’s
(“EUIPO”) decision in Supermac’s (Holdings) Ltd v McDonald’s International
Property Company, Ltd dated 11 January 2019, the EUIPO revoked McDonald’s
rights in respect of the trade mark “BIG MAC”. The reason for the decision was
that McDonald’s had failed to provide sufficient evidence to the EUIPO to prove
that the trade mark “BIG MAC” was genuinely used in the European Union (“EU”) within a continuous period of five years.
Background
Supermac's (Holdings) Ltd, which runs an Irish fast
food chain under the name “Supermac’s”, filed a request for revocation of McDonald’s
trade mark “BIG MAC” against all the goods and services covered, alleging that
the trade mark had not been put into genuine use in the EU within a continuous
period of five years in the past, for the goods or services for which it is
registered, and there are no proper reasons for non-use. The goods and services
covered by the “BIG MAC” trade mark include Class 29 (foods prepared from meat,
pork, fish and poultry products, meat sandwiches,
etc.), Class 30 (edible sandwiches, meat sandwiches, pork sandwiches, etc.) and
Class 42 (services rendered or associated with operating and franchising
restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food
and drink prepared for consumption and for drive- through facilities, etc.).
McDonald’s submitted the following evidence as proof of use:
1.
three affidavits signed by
representatives of McDonald’s in Germany, France and the United Kingdom,
detailing sales figures for the period between 2011 and 2016;
2.
brochures and printouts of
advertising posters, in German, French and English, showing, inter alia, “Big
Mac” meat sandwiches; and packaging for sandwiches (boxes);
3.
printouts from the
McDonald’s websites in different countries in EU; and
4.
a printout from en.wikipedia.org providing information on the “Big Mac”
burger.
EUIPO’s analysis
Regarding the affidavits,
although the EU regulations allow statements that are drawn up by interested
parties themselves or their employees, such statements are generally given less
weight than independent evidence. The probative value depends on whether or not
they are supported by other types of evidence (labels, packaging, etc.) or
evidence originating from independent sources.
As regards the printouts from McDonald’s own
websites, promotional brochures and packaging, EUIPO noted that these evidences
originate from McDonald’s itself. It
could not be concluded from the web pages whether, or how, a purchase could be
made or an order could be placed. There is no information of a single order
being placed. The connection between McDonald’s websites and the eventual
number of items offered or sold could not be established. There is also no information
about how the brochures were circulated, to whom they were offered, and whether
they have led to any potential or actual purchases. There is no independent evidence that shows how
many products for which the packaging was used were actually offered for sale
or sold. In other words, then EUIPO viewed that McDonald’s had failed to prove
the extent of use of “BIG MAC”.
For the printout from en.wikipedia.org, EUIPO noted that Wikipedia entries are not reliable sources of information as
they can be
amended by Wikipedia’s users. They are only relevant for supporting other
independent evidence. As the other evidences in this case fail to show the
extent of use, the printout from Wikipedia could not change the conclusion
reached.
EUIPO’s decision
EUIPO
concluded that the evidence provided by McDonald’s do not provide conclusive proof
that the products marked with “BIG MAC” are offered for actual sale, as there
is no confirmation of any commercial transactions, either online, or via brick-and-mortar operations. Even if
the goods were offered for sale, there is no data about how long the products
were offered on the given web page or in other ways, and there is no
information of any actual sales taking place or any potential and relevant
consumers being engaged, either through an offer, or through a sale. Finally,
as far as the services are considered, there is no evidence that refers to any
of the registered services being offered under the trade mark “BIG MAC”.
Therefore, EUIPO concluded that the evidence does
not allow the conclusion that “BIG MAC” was genuinely used during the continuous
period of five years for the relevant goods and services. EUIPO stated that
this finding was due to the fact that McDonald’s had chosen to restrict the
evidence submitted. McDonald’s has a right to appeal within two months.
Conclusion
This case illustrates that whenever a trade mark owner faces a claim for revocation of trade mark due to non-use, the trade mark owner must provide sufficient evidence to prove not only the use of trade mark during the relevant period within the territory, but also evidence to prove the “extent of use”. It is preferable to have independent evidence from reliable sources, showing that, for example, orders being placed, number of items offered or sold, how the marketing materials were circulated, to whom they were offered, and whether they have led to any potential or actual purchases. Otherwise, brand owners may find themselves in a painful situation – as McDonald’s does in this case.
For enquiries,
please contact our Intellectual Property & Technology Department: |
E: ip@onc.hk T:
(852) 2810 1212 19th Floor, Three Exchange Square, 8 Connaught
Place, Central, Hong Kong |
Important: The law and procedure on
this subject are very specialised and
complicated. This article is just a very general outline for reference and
cannot be relied upon as legal advice in any individual case. If any advice
or assistance is needed, please contact our solicitors. |
Published by ONC Lawyers © 2019 |