Posted on 01/31/2007 12:51:52 PM PST by Kiss Me Hardy
ROSEBUD burger baron Ian Macdonald almost bit off more than he could chew when he went public about his bunfight with fast food giant McDonald's. Yesterday his business, Macdonald's Gourmet Burgers, had the busiest day in its short history as it was flooded with supportive customers. "I am on my way to buy another 150kg of beef now because we have completely sold out," Mr Macdonald said yesterday afternoon, before reopening for the dinner rush. "It has been absolutely crazy. I really have to apologise to everyone for the delays, but it was just so unexpected." .......
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Read the name again. He even spells it differently.
Right out of Eddie Murphy's Coming to America!
What a Kroc!
Good thing his name wasn't Wendy MacDonald.
I guess that I shouldn't ask Mac for two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun, huh?
How can they sue him? It's not even spelled the same, and it's his real name, unlike "McDonald's".
hehehe
McDonald's has the Golden Arches, McDougle's has the Golden Arcs. See the difference?
He should contest the lawsuit, countersue, win, and get rich.
Trademark owners certainly have rights, and what the limits are, are not clear. Which means they are set by courts.
MacDonald here has a good set of facts.
It's his name.
It's spelt differently.
He doesn't make his place look like McDonald's.
He doesn't sell the same sort of product at all.
He is in his home courts versus an American mega-firm.
They are going to try and wear him out with litigation expenses, but he should simply stand his ground. And he should make sure that he gets all the publicity in the world out of it: it's the American bullies versus the local boy.
The local boy will win this one, in the end, and when he does, if he fights to the end he'll get a whopping cash award out of McDonald's to. But he needs to countersue, for interference with his business, harassment, abuse of process - the kitchen sink - so that McDonald's cannot decide to just cut their losses and cancel the suit. Having started the war with him, when things develop as they must, all things considered, he can't just let them slip over the border. He needs to have his own lawsuits, which he WON'T drop, moving forward. They will either settle and make him rich, or he will take them INTO court in Australia, have the Australian justice system kick their ass, and get rich.
They picked the wrong fight, and so long as he fights it well and doesn't surrender, he will probably win.
This reminds me of Eddie Murph's Coming To America.
...and Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln...
The MacDonald's burger looks a lot better than a McDonald's burger to me.
this reminds me of an incident several years ago in england(?) I believe..mickey d's went into a town to open a restaurant and the first thing they did was sue a local pub, the name of which was also mcdonalds..it had been in this guys family, as I recall, longer than the U.S. has been a country..eventually, the townspeople basically told mickey d's that if they didn't back off, they'd be closing in 6 months anyway because they'd be boycotted bigtime..mickey d's did in fact back down..I've been trying to find a link to the story but can't find it..
The bun looks more cooked than the meat.
Hardee's Har Har.
I remember an independant fast food restaurant in my neck of the woods several years ago by the name of Wee Dee's. You guessed it, they had a lawsuit slapped against them for sounding too much like the breakfast of champions. They eventually closed.
Jeez, that's a big burger - I think I can see the cow's legs hanging out from under the bun on that one!
>>Trademark owners certainly have rights, and what the limits are, are not clear.
>>Which means they are set by courts.
Sounds like has been set by the courts, it is clear.
>>MacDonald here has a good set of facts.
>>It's his name.
That’s nice, but irrelevant.
>>It's spelt differently.
There is a sounds like rule
>>He doesn't make his place look like McDonald's.
That’s nice, but irrelevant.
>>He doesn't sell the same sort of product at all.
Trademarks are by area, and food is the area. Which would be close enough, but he sells burgers, gourmet or not it’s a burger. Now if it was, say a car, he’d be ok.
>>He is in his home courts versus an American mega-firm.
Irrelevent, McD’s will have lawyers over there too, and a lawyer in Australia will be cheaper than say LA.
>>They are going to try and wear him out with litigation expenses,
Of course, because that’s cheaper for them, but if he makes it too public, they will have to make “an Example” of him.
>>but he should simply stand his ground. And he should make sure that he gets all the
>>publicity in the world out of it: it's the American bullies versus the local boy.
This is really bad advice from what I know of trademark law.
>>The local boy will win this one, in the end, and when he does, if he fights to the end
>>he'll get a whopping cash award out of McDonald's to. But he needs to countersue, for
>>interference with his business, harassment, abuse of process - the kitchen sink - so that
>>McDonald's cannot decide to just cut their losses and cancel the suit. Having started
>>the war with him, when things develop as they must, all things considered, he can't just
>>let them slip over the border. He needs to have his own lawsuits, which he WON'T
>>drop, moving forward. They will either settle and make him rich, or he will take them
>>INTO court in Australia, have the Australian justice system kick their ass, and get rich.
I hope and pray he does not take your advice, or he will wind up working for McD’s for the rest of his life as an indentured servant.
>>They picked the wrong fight, and so long as he fights it well and doesn't surrender, he
>>will probably win.
My Trademark attorney says you are wrong. Ask someone who Knows...
Let's take it to court.
In Australia.
I'll bet you McDonald's doesn't take it to court in Australia in the end.
Because though you think it's black and white, it ain't.
Bigger than a Big Mac/w cheese!
>>Let's take it to court.
>>In Australia.
Australia’s laws will be similar to the rest of the international community, because treaties are based on such things, and they want protection over here, so they give us protection over there. "Sounds like" in the same trademark catagory is a long held precident in trade-marking so you’d lose over there too.
>>I'll bet you McDonald's doesn't take it to court in Australia in the end.
I’ll bet you he changes his restaurants name before it goes to court.
So, what shall we bet, Happy meals? (My standard bet for the internet).
>>Because though you think it's black and white, it ain't.
What if it actually is black and white and I think it is black and white…
This is a pretty clear case, I am betting that should this go to court, McD’s will have the more expensive lawyer. Always bet on the lawyer with the more expensive shoes, always.
Even better that his name isn't, Wendy Hardy MacDonald
I can understand their angst. God forbid someone should eat one of his burgers and realize that theirs are not even fit for animal consumption.
I don't like Happy Meals.
Let's bet...think...think...think...Burger King original chicken sandwiches.
Trouble is, I fear the fellow will freak out at the costs and the prospect of fighting McDonald's and not go to court.
So here is what I am willing to bet: IF he does not chicken out and takes it to court, I believe he will win. I think McDonald's' case is weak. Selling sandwiches is not enough.
I won't bet that the fellow won't swoon before the fight. He might.
But I will bet that IF it goes to court, he wins.
>>I don't like Happy Meals.
Nobody does, that’s the point.
>>Let's bet...think...think...think...Burger King original chicken sandwiches.
Then who ever wins might be tempted to make the loser pay up, Grin.
>>Trouble is, I fear the fellow will freak out at the costs and the prospect of fighting
>>McDonald's and not go to court.
Of COURSE he will, and that’s because a competent attorney will tell him he hasn’t got a prayer. That was in fact what I was betting.
>>So here is what I am willing to bet: IF he does not chicken out and takes it to court,
>>I believe he will win. I think McDonald's' case is weak. Selling sandwiches is not
>>enough.
This will never make it to court, or even if it does, it will be settled out of court and the case dismissed.
The “not go to court” is a defacto win for McDonald's.
Tell you what, let’s cut to what this is all about. You win if his restaurant keeps the name, I win if he changes it. Changing it is what this is all about, right?
>>I won't bet that the fellow won't swoon before the fight. He might.
>>But I will bet that IF it goes to court, he wins.
I would also be willing to bet the soda pop this will not go to court. (Buy your own fries, I prefer Wendy’s chili)
Looks to me as if the meat (under the grilled onions) is larger than the top bun and may even (gasp!) actually be as big around as the buns.
Seems like all ole Clara'd have to do is lift up her onions in answer to her eternal question of "Where's the beef?"
"You win if his restaurant keeps the name, I win if he changes it."
Well, that's what the case is about, but he may change the name because he's afraid to fight McDonald's. Australians have not the "Spirit of Bove" in them.
I think you will win if we bet that, because you're probably right, he'll probably fold.
What interests me is not the power of McDonald's, but the legal issue itself. I think it far overstates the case that nobody with a name sounding like McDonald can run a restaurant and sell hamburgers anywhere in the world. I think that is McDonalds' attorney's positions, yes, but I think that there's bravado there, and confidence in the power of money to win and intimidate.
I'm willing to bet on the outcome of a full court case.
Actually adjudicated on the facts, I don't think that what Mr. MacDonald is doing in his single restaurant can be reasonably construed to have anything to do with McDonald's fast food chain. Or rather, I don't think the facts of this case will constitute trademark infringement. If it is actually adjudicated, I think McDonalds will lose in court, and I am willing to bet that they do.
I love your number 20 but make mine without mayo. That stuff's fattening.
Cute, not true but cute.
I think he's obviously trading on Mickie D's name. If he'd opened as "Ian's" he would have sold a tenth the burgers.
The meat is under the onion - and seriously, these are nice burgers. I had one just the other day.
Actually he would have - but you have no way of knowing that.
You have to know the environment - Rosebud is a small place and this is the type of fast food people like there. Quality and 'traditional' - traditional in the sense that he does a proper Aussie hamburger, rather than something like McDonalds - though to their credit, they have introduced the McOz which isn't a bad facsimile.
The US Company Burger King trades under the name Hungry Jacks in Australia because of a dispute with a little burger place. They lost because the owner of that burger place held a prior trademark in Australia, so the situation isn't the same - but it actually has become a minor part of Australian folklore and McDonalds could suffer a lot of adverse publicity if they push this too far.
The law is on their side, but they may not find it's worth fighting.
"The law is on their side, but they may not find it's worth fighting."
This is what I dispute.
I am not so sure the law IS as far on their side as has been assumed on this thread.
I am willing to bet something trivial that if the case goes to trial, that McDonald's will lose to MacDonald.
What's the difference between and American and an Aussie burger? Although I would hasten to add Mickie D's burgers are a pretty poor example of the American variety.
The week before he died, Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland and the week before he died, Kennedy was in...
Well, he didn't name it Crapsburger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.