The Mc"Clans" are In Danger

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

So, I may be the lone dissenter here, though I'm not saying that there's not a solution to the problem, but are there none of us here who are business owners or shareholders or work for a corporation or support a non-profit for whom brand identity and protection are a consideration? Is there some sort of threshold of brand recognition and ubiquity that such considerations become irrelevant?

Regards,
Rex.

Brand identity is key to the survival of any company. Volkswagen stoutly defends its "VW" logo just as Roll-Royce regulates not only the name (try calling your sandwich the Roll-Royce of hamburgers) the R-R logos (including the hypen in the name and logo) as well as the "Flying Lady" that appears on the radiator of its cars and on the jet engines that propel aircraft. It's all about product quality and product (corporate) liability.

The threshold of brand recognition is crossed when a brand fails to support its ubiquitous rights across the boards. Selective enforcement is no enforcement, and can lead to loss of ownership of the brand name, trade mark, or logo. Which is why Coca-Cola is ferocious in guarding the word "Coke" and doesn't hesitate to take action against brand transgressors when necessary.

In the instance of the fund-raiser, McDonald's failure to protect its rights could possibly be construed as "implied consent" and open the door to potential litigation should someone sue Ms. McClusky and the organizers of her event for any reason what so ever. Frivolous lawsuits are a fact of corporate life, and cost corporations millions of dollars every year-- cost which are ultimately passed on to the consumer.

By protecting their corporate identity companies like Apple, or Nike, or McDonalds are able to assure the public of the quality and consistency of their products, and protect consumers from shoddy or dangerous products with similar names, or branded with similar logotypes. They also protect themselves from bogus litigation, which is a good thing.

That said, I'm now going out for a Big Mac and fries.

[Phil]

As MOR says, large corporations guard their brand identities jealously. I recall a thread a while back about a Canadian whisky/whiskey? firm using the word Glen in their product which was an obvious attempt to pass it off as Scottish and the Scotch whisky people's litigation to prevent it. I still find it difficult to accept that any company can obtain the exclusive rights to what is, in effect, an individual's name just as others tried to patent genomes. That they can, however, is a matter for governments to legislate for and a matter to raise with your particular political representative.

[nagod]

if the individual had used their name, no problem.they used a copyrighted trademark/identifier.maybe others can explain it better,but the corporation is only protecting their business.

[Highland Logan]

As MOR says, large corporations guard their brand identities jealously. I recall a thread a while back about a Canadian whisky/whiskey? firm using the word Glen in their product which was an obvious attempt to pass it off as Scottish and the Scotch whisky people's litigation to prevent it.

I also agree with MoR, however as a side bar you should check your facts on the bolded piece.

Frank

[beloitpiper]

Since when has Mc[Something] been on lockdown by McDonalds? #@*& them. MOR said that "McDonald's failure to protect its rights could possibly be construed as "implied consent" and open the door to potential litigation". However, I see it as McDonalds trying to sue so many people that eventaully the "Mc" prefix will become theirs by default.

This is ridiculous. McDonalds is being a bully. They've establish their brand just fine and a charity event with the very common and universal "Mc" prefix should not be theirs just beause they're the biggest to use it.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Since when has Mc[Something] been on lockdown by McDonalds? #@*& them. MOR said that "McDonald's failure to protect its rights could possibly be construed as "implied consent" and open the door to potential litigation". However, I see it as McDonalds trying to sue so many people that eventaully the "Mc" prefix will become theirs by default.

This is ridiculous. McDonalds is being a bully. They've establish their brand just fine and a charity event with the very common and universal "Mc" prefix should not be theirs just beause they're the biggest to use it.

Three things here which should be addressed, if for no other reason than intellectual integrity:

1) Despite all of the anger directed towards McDonalds on the internet and on this site, McDonalds has not sued Ms. McClusky. They did file an objection to her obtaining a trademark for the word "McFest", citing the need to protect their own family of "Mc" brands that are already covered by trademark.

2) McDonalds did offer to pay all of the costs of Ms. McCluskey re-branding her event if she would abandon the word "McFest". Ms. McCluskey declined this offer and decided to challenge McDonalds objections to her trademark filings.

3) Despite having spent spent approximately $3,000 on her appeal against the objections filed by McDonalds, Ms. McCluskey is continuing to negotiate with McDonalds regarding a possible settlement. These negotiations were initiated by McDonalds.

Somehow, I don't quite see protecting a valuable brand name as being a bully. Setting aside the emotional arguments, both sides have a case to make. Both sides are in business, and both sides have developed a brand name which each wishes to protect. McDonalds may-- or may not-- have the stronger argument. The Trademark commission will consider as many as thirteen different points of recognition/commonality of the proposed trademark before making their decision. At the end of the day this independent body will decide if Ms. McCluskey's requested trademark violates the rights of the McDonalds Corporation.

[beloitpiper]

Here's how I see it:

She's not calling it "Big Mac Fest". It's McFest. The name is not owned by McDonalds any more than FitzFest would be.

McDonalds is trying to own something they don't by challenging everybody who uses the "Mc" prefix. They believe that if they challenge everybody, they'll have a monopoly on it. THAT'S why I'm against their actions.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Here's how I see it:

She's not calling it "Big Mac Fest". It's McFest. The name is not owned by McDonalds any more than FitzFest would be.

McDonalds is trying to own something they don't by challenging everybody who uses the "Mc" prefix. They believe that if they challenge everybody, they'll have a monopoly on it. THAT'S why I'm against their actions.

It's not about owning the "Mc", but rather it is about protecting the "Mc"s that McDonalds already own, defending their right to "expand the brand" at some future date, and protecting themselves from those parties who would take advantage of McDonalds corporate good name in dealing with the public at large.

Their concern is that if they don't challenge every potential encroachment on their brand, there will come a day when some really dishonest person sets out purposely to defraud the public by presenting their company as somehow connected to McDonalds and at that point they will be unable to defend their exclusive use of their trademarks.

Believe me, if the tables were turned, Ms. McCluskey would probably be suing McDonalds for millions if she thought they had trespassed on her trademark.

[beloitpiper]

It's not about owning the "Mc", but rather it is about protecting the "Mc"s that McDonalds already own, defending their right to "expand the brand" at some future date, and protecting themselves from those parties who would take advantage of McDonalds corporate good name in dealing with the public at large.

So they're suing her because they might, in the possible future, want to have a McFest of their own?

[Phil]

I also agree with MoR, however as a side bar you should check your facts on the bolded piece.

Frank

How about this? - http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/c...nadian+whiskey