• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • News/Articles
  • Identical Trademarks: McDonald's Corporation v. Sterling's Mac Fast Food (2007)

Latest News

Back

Identical Trademarks: McDonald's Corporation v. Sterling's Mac Fast Food (2007)

Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  31 Oct 2020     Views:1008

Date of Judgement: 18/06/2007

Court: High Court of Karnataka

Coram: Justice V. Gopala Gowda

 

Facts:

McDonald's Corporation (Plaintiff) is a Multinational Corporation originating from the USA, whose trademark "Big Mac" has been registered in the USA in 1968. In India, the trademarks of Big Mac, McDonald's Corporation & the signature brand logo "M" were applied for registration in 1996, and they were granted an exclusive right over the use of the word "Mac."

Sterling's Mac Fast Food (Defendant) is a partnership firm based in Bangalore and was established in 1983. The name "Mac" as a result of one of the founding partner's son's name is "Mac Mathew." In September 1993, the plaintiff came to know about the prefixing of the word Mac to fast food by the defendants and alleged the misuse of their goodwill and reputation. A notice was sent to the defendants to change their name, to which it was reverted, that the name employed was "Sterling's Mac Fast Food" and not "Mac Fast Food." The plaintiff further pointed out that the name "Sterling's" was not visible on some of the items and requested them to use the name in bold letters. However, the request was turned down as the defendants held that they were using it since 1983 and refused to incorporate any changes.

In 1998, a suit was filed against the defendants seeking an injunction against the use of the trademark "Mac," "Big Mac," and pay amounts due on account of the illegal use of their trademark.

The defendant had already registered the impugned word under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1858, whereas the plaintiff applied for its registration only on 27/9/1996. The Trial Court, in its verdict, established that the defendants were not illegally using the trademark, had not illegally accrued profits from the same and that the plaintiff corporation was not entitled to any remedy. The present matter is a Regular First Appeal against the verdict of the Trial Court dated 15-10-2004.

 

Issues:

Whether the Trial Court incorrectly applied section 29 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

Whether the defendant infringed the plaintiff's trademark.

Whether the gap of 5 years in instituting suit after knowledge essentially constitutes waiving of the right.

 

The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

According to section 2(i)(v), the use of the false name or initials amounts to a false trade description. A trademark is also deemed to be deceptively similar under section 2(1)(d) if it resembles another mark or is likely to deceive or cause confusion in relation to another trademark. Section 29 pertains to infringement of trademark but contains that a suit for an injunction will not be granted if the defendant can prove that the use of the mark cannot cause deception or confusion.

 

Judgment:

The plaintiff entered the Indian Market in 1996, whereas the defendant firm was in existence much prior to that. It is also pertinent to mention that the plaintiff had knowledge of the use since 1993 but initiated proceedings after a period of 5 years and was thus subject to laches. The learned judges relied on section 29 of the Act and opined that for the infringement of the trademark, the replication had to be deceptively similar or confusing. The plaintiff's trademarks were Big Mac, McDonald's & the corporate logo M whereas the defendant's marks were "Sterling's Mac Fast Food" & "Mac Fast Food." The Court also looked into the registered logos of the two parties, and despite both resembling the letter M, they were different in terms of styling and could not have caused confusion.

On reading of the plaintiff's memorandum of appeal, it was recognized that the plaintiff corporation was registered in India in February 1993 itself. However, the defendant's fast food restaurant was set up in 1983. It was thus held that the plaintiff corporation could not find faults with the defendant's logo as they were already in existence and had registered much earlier. In addition to that, the request by McDonald's to use the name Sterling's Mac made it clear that they had no problem with the use of the term "Mac," which they claimed to be protected by trademark if the prefix of Sterling's was added in bold.

The Hon'ble judge also observed that the instituting of the suit after a long gap of 5 years was wrongful conduct by the plaintiff itself, and the suit should not have been entertained by the Trial Court while adding that the Court was right in dismissing the suit.

There is no straitjacket formula to decide what can amount to deception or confusion with regard to a trademark. Emphasis was placed on Justice Parker's view in Re Pianotist Co's Application, i.e., the words had to be judged by their look, sound, the goods they would be applied to, the kind of customers likely to buy them, and the consequences of their use. [1] Reference was also made to the Supreme Court case of Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta [3] that held issues of deceptive trademarks had to be decided on a case to case basis. The case also involved the question of acquiescence (submitting to use) for an extended period and held the right to complain to be partially waived under the frame of limitation.

The defendant raised the view of the Supreme Court in 1963 wherein the relevant factor for consideration would be "honest and Concurrent use" of the trademark due to the inability to determine the volume of use. [2] This implies that even a small trader who uses a particular trademark is entitled to that protection irrespective of its corresponding monetary value as long as it contains a business value and that business is continuous and not merely stray.

The plaintiff's issue was pertaining to the use of the word "Mac," but in the given circumstances of the case, they were using it only since October 1996, much later than that of the defendants, and could not claim exclusive rights over the word Mac. The Court regarded the plaintiff's suit to be imaginary and vexatious. 

It was held that the plaintiff's grievance against the use of the term "Mac" could not be claimed as they had no exclusive right due to their inaction and late registration in India and upheld the decision of the Trial Court. Moreover, the plaintiff's request to furnish the account of illegal profits made by the defendant was also dismissed as the prayer was worded in a way that asked the Court to furnish the accounts of the defendant. The plaintiff's player asking the defendant to deliver all goods for destruction was also dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff had no rights over the same.

 

Conclusion:

The learned single judge bench at Bangalore concurred with the findings of the impugned order of the Trial Court and deemed the plaintiff's suit to be devoid of any merits. They were not entitled to an injunction and were not granted any exclusive rights over the word "Mac" in this matter as it was registered by the defendant about 13 years earlier. This judgment enunciated that emphasis in matters of trademarks would not be the volume of trade but rather the honest and concurrent use of the intellectual property that granted the owner business value. However, the same right cannot be claimed for instances where the use is not bona fide or for stray and occasional purposes. The owner of a trademark waives his right to an extent when he is aware of the use and does not interfere. Moreover, the use of the name is prohibited only when it is deceptively similar and can cause confusion to customers. The matter was analyzed by virtue of provisions contained in the Act of 1958 despite its repeal in 1999 by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as the issue arose during the existence of the former and was thus to be adjudicated on the same.

 

[1] (1906) 23 RPC 774.

[2] AIR 1963 SC 1882.

[3] AIR 1963 SC 449.


Document:


Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  31 Oct 2020     Views:1008

News Updates

The Legal Framework of Bail Conditions in India: B...
25 Oct 2024     Views:5830
Changing an Arbitrator Mid-Proceeding: Legal Frame...
23 Oct 2024     Views:5258
IMF Retains India's FY25 GDP Growth Forecast at 7%...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5239
The Evolving Landscape of Russian Anti-Suit Injunc...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5028
Hyundai’s IPO vs Competitors: How the Auto Giant...
15 Oct 2024     Views:5050
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Post Decree...
14 Oct 2024     Views:4701
SEBI Issues Checklist for AIFs, Their Managers, an...
08 Oct 2024     Views:5090
The Siemens v. Russian Railroads Case...
07 Oct 2024     Views:5083
Empowering Minds in Confinement: Bombay HC’s Lan...
03 Oct 2024     Views:5198
The Dynamics of Novation in Contract Law and Its I...
02 Oct 2024     Views:5382
SEBI Establishes Consistent Evaluation Standards f...
01 Oct 2024     Views:5088
Landmark Decision by Austrian Supreme Court on Arb...
30 Sep 2024     Views:5064
Key Considerations for Indian Commercial Claims...
25 Sep 2024     Views:5015
Boom or Bust: Africa’s Oil Giants Face Declining...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5133
The Growing Role of Arbitration in Intellectual Pr...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5093
Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SC...
20 Sep 2024     Views:5415
SEBI's Employee Grievances Prompt Formation of Wor...
19 Sep 2024     Views:5245
Environmental Law in India: Challenges and Opportu...
18 Sep 2024     Views:6074
Navigating the New Legal Landscape of Exclusive Ju...
16 Sep 2024     Views:5208
The Anatomy of Joint Venture Breakups in India (an...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5549
The Integration of ESG in India's M&A Landscape...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5453
Future of AI in Legal Systems and Conflict Resolut...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5642
World Health Assembly Revises International Health...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5495
Pokemon GO Fans Concerned Over Restrictive New Ter...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5612
Landmark Judgment on Setting Aside Arbitration Awa...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5397
Understanding the Process of Issuing Summons in In...
11 Jul 2023     Views:8775
Understanding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)...
10 Jul 2023     Views:7326
Understanding the Mental Health Act in India: A St...
09 Jul 2023     Views:7369
Combating Manual Scavenging in India: A Call for S...
07 Jul 2023     Views:7167
Impleadment in Supreme Court of India: A Comprehen...
05 Jul 2023     Views:8119
Unraveling the Distinction: Culpable Homicide vs. ...
03 Jul 2023     Views:7464
Understanding the Difference between Money Bills a...
02 Jul 2023     Views:6005
Understanding the Civil Procedure Code in India: A...
01 Jul 2023     Views:6781
The Rights of Criminals in India: Upholding Justic...
30 Jun 2023     Views:6045
Exploring the Differences between the US and India...
29 Jun 2023     Views:6050
What to Do If the Police Refuse to Register Your F...
26 Jun 2023     Views:6298
Timeline of Environmental Protocols: A Global Effo...
25 Jun 2023     Views:5997
How to Deal with Cheque Bounce Cases in India...
24 Jun 2023     Views:5977
Pursuing a Lucrative Litigation Career in Indian L...
22 Jun 2023     Views:6027
Understanding the Emergency Provisions of India: S...
21 Jun 2023     Views:5992
Environment Legislation in India: A Comprehensive ...
20 Jun 2023     Views:6348
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
18 Jun 2023     Views:5851
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
17 Jun 2023     Views:5877
Timeline of Same-Sex Laws in India: A Journey Towa...
16 Jun 2023     Views:6323
Sir Creek Dispute and Legal Implications...
15 Jun 2023     Views:6518
Jurisprudence of NDPS Laws in India: A Comprehensi...
14 Jun 2023     Views:6096
Impleadment Proceedings: A Comprehensive Guide to ...
13 Jun 2023     Views:6530
Understanding Continuing Mandamus: A Powerful Judi...
12 Jun 2023     Views:8494
Res Judicata: The Doctrine of Finality in Legal Pr...
10 Jun 2023     Views:6530
Mastering the Art of Legal Drafting: A Comprehensi...
08 Jun 2023     Views:6192
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CP...
07 Jun 2023     Views:11834
Understanding the Laws of War: Protecting Humanity...
03 Jun 2023     Views:5915
Understanding the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC...
02 Jun 2023     Views:6762
The National Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDP...
01 Jun 2023     Views:6342
A Step-by-Step Guide: How to File an FIR in India...
31 May 2023     Views:6041
Zero FIR: An Effective Tool for Prompt Criminal Ju...
30 May 2023     Views:6275
Unveiling the Dissent of Judges in Judicial Judgme...
28 May 2023     Views:5920
Environmental Laws in India: Safeguarding Nature f...
25 May 2023     Views:6370
The Recusal of Supreme Court of India Judges from ...
24 May 2023     Views:6041
Understanding the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Cour...
23 May 2023     Views:6488
Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Compre...
22 May 2023     Views:6698
Landmark Judgments in Arbitration Law in India: A...
21 May 2023     Views:6924
Landmark Cases on Anticipatory Bail in India: A Pa...
20 May 2023     Views:10815
Embracing the Future: How AI is Revolutionizing th...
18 May 2023     Views:6138
Understanding Narcotics Laws in India: A Comprehen...
17 May 2023     Views:6002
Understanding Indian Laws on Cross-Border Transact...
16 May 2023     Views:7131
ADR mechanism of legal adjudication in India...
15 May 2023     Views:5848
Validity of foreign arbitral award in India throug...
14 May 2023     Views:5864
Scope of Section 151 CPC...
13 May 2023     Views:7438
Detailed Overview on Section 482 of Crpc...
11 May 2023     Views:6386
Scope of Decree under CPC...
10 May 2023     Views:5944
Legal development of Arbitration Laws in India....
09 May 2023     Views:5986
Arbitration Laws in India...
07 May 2023     Views:5929
Impact of COVID-19 on Legal Industry...
06 May 2023     Views:8034
Chargesheet not having authority's valid sanction ...
02 May 2023     Views:6207
Same-Sex Marriage in India...
30 Apr 2023     Views:5852
National Commission for Women...
27 Apr 2023     Views:5705
Law making process of India....
26 Apr 2023     Views:6789
Bail Provisions in India...
25 Apr 2023     Views:5728
Life imprisonment in Criminal Law in India...
24 Apr 2023     Views:6141
Contempt of Court...
23 Apr 2023     Views:5983
The collegium system of Judiciary in India....
22 Apr 2023     Views:5668
Remarriage before Expiry of Limitation Period to f...
21 Apr 2023     Views:5668
Need for strict measure of NDPS laws in India....
20 Apr 2023     Views:5824
Nature of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is Q...
19 Apr 2023     Views:8257
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint cannot be rejected m...
18 Apr 2023     Views:6866
Mediation: At the Dawn of Golden Age organized at ...
16 Apr 2023     Views:5949
Central Government's motto should be mediate, not ...
15 Apr 2023     Views:5665
Ambedkar Jayanti Celebrations...
14 Apr 2023     Views:5868
Supreme Court of India calls for Preventive Measur...
12 Apr 2023     Views:5436
Pursuing LL.M is not break in Law Practice, Rules ...
11 Apr 2023     Views:5654
Law should take into consideration realities of co...
10 Apr 2023     Views:5488
Delhi High Court said that peeping into public bat...
08 Apr 2023     Views:6083
Delhi High Court denies bails to AAP's Satyendra J...
06 Apr 2023     Views:6205
Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq Judgement Would App...
30 Jan 2023     Views:5932
Article 311(1) | An Order of Removal From Service ...
26 Jan 2023     Views:6412
Leaders shouldn't disrespect the President or Pri...
17 Jan 2023     Views:5715
New bench will hear Ashwini Upadhyay's Supreme Cou...
15 Jan 2023     Views:5853
Person Who Drove Rashly with the Knowledge that it...
12 Jan 2023     Views:6437
The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot b...
11 Jan 2023     Views:6177
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:96165
  • Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India
    On 11 Dec 2020    Views:73727
  • Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE
    On 14 Dec 2020    Views:71147
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:70286
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)
    On 08 Nov 2020    Views:59645
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1128 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.