McDonald’s loses chicken ‘Big Mac’ trademark battle

In an article in December 2022 we reported a Decision from the EUIPO Board of appeal, whereby a previous decision cancelling McDonald’s EU Trademark “BIG MAC” had been overturned. In said previous decision the Cancellation division had decided that the evidence of use for the mark “BIG MAC” submitted by McDonald’s had not been sufficient.

But this was not the end of the story and the other party, the Irish fast food chain Supermac’s (Holdings) Ltd. brought the matter before the General Court of the European Union, contesting again the genuine use of the mark “BIG MAC” by McDonald’s. The General Court analysed the evidence of use submitted by McDonald’s in detail and came to the conclusion that McDonald’s had not proven use of the “BIG MAC” trademark in relation to chicken products or services “associated with operating restaurants”. With respect to chicken sandwiches, McDonald’s submitted printouts of advertising posters, screenshots of a television advertisement which was broadcast in France in 2016 and screenshots from the Facebook account of McDonald’s France in 2016, which show use in relation to “BIG MAC” sandwiches of chicken, but in the view of the General Court do not make it possible to ascertain in what quantities, or with what regularity and recurrence, the goods concerned were distributed. The evidence in relation do chicken burgers does furthermore not contain any indications as regards the prices and is thus considered insufficient.

As regards McDonald’s restaurant services, the General Court finds that it would be contrary to Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009 to hold that use in connection with goods could also prove use in connection with specific services. The evidence which was submitted by McDonald’s does not, in the General Court’s view, serve to prove that the contested mark has been used in connection with ‘services rendered or associated with operating restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food and drink prepared for consumption and for drive-through facilities; preparation of carry-out foods’.

As the matter now stands, McDonald’s can maintain the “BIG MAC” mark for the meat sandwiches everyone knows, but will lose trademark protection for chicken sandwiches and restaurant services in relation to this mark.

The “lessons learned” that we indicated in our previous article are still valid, namely:

• It is not because the mark is widely known that its genuine use will be automatically recognized by the EUIPO. Proof of use should be submitted as for any other trademark. Proof of the use of a trademark must be provided according to certain criteria, the EUIPO not being able to rely on facts that are not submitted to it
• This case is an opportunity to remind trademarks owners of the importance of collecting regularly relevant documents showing the use of their trademarks to be able to defend their rights within the scope of a non-use cancellation action.

This decision can still be appealed to the EU’s top court, the Court of Justice, but only under very restrictive conditions.

2024 INTA Annual Meeting in Atlanta

Philippe Ocvirk and Martin Gutwillinger will be attending the 2024 INTA Annual Meeting in Atlanta!

INTA is the largest gathering of its kind. A unique opportunity to entertain robust conversations and exchange on best practices with more than 10,000 IP specialists from around the world.

Our team is eagerly looking forward to reconnecting with colleagues and making new connections.

The association of the name Pablo Escobar with drug trafficking by the Spanish public could not allow the name “Pablo Escobar” to be registered as a trade mark, as this could have been perceived as contrary to EU values.

Despite respect for the presumption of innocence of the man who was never convicted, the rejection of the trademark registration on the grounds of public order seems, thus more than justified.

Eenheetspatent-Package

Europäesch Patenter si strategesch Tools fir innovativ Firmen: si hëllefen hir technologesch Entwécklunge souwéi hir Maartundeeler ze schützen, Investitiounen unzezéien a Partnerschaften anzegoen.

Bis haut si méi wéi 22.000 europäesch Patenter als Eenheetspatent erdeelt ginn, dorënner 34% vu PMEen.

Zënter sengem Akraafttrieden den 1. Juni 2023, ergänzt a stäerkt d‘europäescht Eenheetspatent („Europäescht Patent mat eenheetlecher Wierkung“) den existente zentraliséierte System fir europäesch Patenter. Zesumme mam eenheetleche Patentgeriicht (EPG), bitt et fir d‘Notzer eng käschteneffizient Optioun fir de Patentschutz an d‘Sträitschlichtung an Europa.

Zéckt net eis Patentequipe ze kontaktéiere fir all Froen zum Thema zum Eenheetspatent a méi allgemeng zum Schutz vum intellektuellen Eegentum.

Liest och hei d’Brochure vum Europäesche Patentamt zum Thema:

https://e-courses.epo.org/pluginfile.php/194229/mod_label/intro/UP-1920x1080px-Flyer-B-users-LUX-R01-SEO.pdf

Office Freylinger is proud to participate in the CEIPI Job Fair on February 16th, 2023.

Lawyers, engineers, IP professionals in the making, do not hesitate to send us your applications !

McDonald’s has recently obtained a decision in its favour from the EUIPO Board of Appeal, overturning the original decision of the Cancellation division which revoked the EU trademark “BIG MAC” in its entirety in 2019.

You certainly remember the 2019 EUIPO Cancellation Division decision that cancelled the “BIG MAC” EU trademark on the basis-of non-use.

This decision had surprised the public for whom it was inconceivable to imagine McDonald has lost the BIG MAC trademark in the EU.  Indeed, who does not know the BIG MAC mark? How could it be therefore considered that the BIG MAC mark had not been used in the European Union?

This case is the perfect example of the difference between the perception of the use of a mark by the public and EUIPO’s application of the legal requirements in a revocation action. EUIPO’s position can be sometimes considered too strict on this subject by the owners of widely-known marks which think that EUIPO’s decisions are not in line with reality.

However, there is a simple principle in trademark law: a trademark should be used for the goods and services covered after registration in order to remain protected and upon request at the competent trademark office by a third party, the trademark owner has to prove the genuine use of the trademark. The indications and evidence of use must establish the place, time, extent and nature of use of the trademark for the goods and/or services for which it is registered. Therefore, the EUIPO cannot rely on facts that are not submitted to it.

In the decision of 11th January 2019, the Cancellation Division found that the evidence provided by McDonald’s was insufficient to establish genuine use of the BIG MAC trademark.

The EU trademark BIG MAC was revoked in its entirety.

Following this decision, McDonald’s has lodged an appeal before the EUIPO Board of Appeal.

The EUIPO Board of appeal overturned the original decision in a decision dating from 14th December 2022.

The following relevant points should be noted:

• McDonald has submitted a lot of additional evidence which have been accepted by the Board of Appeal, including consumer surveys, advertising materials, Google Analytics data and a financial audit report prepared by an independent auditing firm to demonstrate genuine use of its trademark

• The Board of Appeal has been more accurate in its assessment of the submitted documents than the Cancellation Division, which has led to the acceptation of some documents which have been initially disregarded, including the printout from Wikipedia and affidavits signed by representatives of McDonald’s.

Big MAC lovers can be therefore reassured at least for now because the decision can be appealed to the General Court.

In the meantime, there are important lessons to be learned:

• It is not because the mark is widely known that its genuine use will be automatically recognized by the EUIPO. Proof of use should be submitted as for any other trademarks. Proof of the use of a trademark must be provided according to certain criteria, the EUIPO not being able to rely on facts that are not submitted to it

• This case is an opportunity to remind trademarks owners of the importance of collecting regularly relevant documents showing the use of their trademarks to be able to defend their rights within the scope of a non-use cancellation action.

Do not hesitate to reach out to Office Freylinger’s trademark team to discuss the best way to prepare your files and to check if your trademark rights might be affected by a revocation action for non-use.

Eugénie Desmet

Fonds PME 2023

Bonne nouvelle ! En 2023, l’Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), conjointement avec la Commission européenne et les offices nationaux de la propriété intellectuelle de l’UE, réitère son aide financière aux petites et moyennes entreprises (PME) de l’Union européenne.

Le Fonds pour les PME, intitulé « Ideas Powered for business », est un programme de subventions qui vise à améliorer l’accès à la propriété intellectuelle des petites et moyennes entreprises de l’UE et leur faire ainsi gagner en compétitivité.

Cette aide financière permet de demander le remboursement d’une partie des taxes officielles payées dans le cadre d’un dépôt de marque ou modèle. Selon le territoire désigné dans la demande, il est possible de prétendre à un remboursement de 50 à 75 % du montant total des taxes officielles déboursées, avec un plafond de 1000 EUR par subvention.

Cette aide ne concerne pas uniquement les dépôts effectués directement auprès de l’EUIPO ; elle s’adresse également aux demandes déposées dans un pays membre de l’Union européenne ou auprès de l’Organisation mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle (OMPI).

Afin d’être éligible, le demandeur doit être une micro, petite ou moyenne entreprise établie dans l’un des États membres de l’UE et correspondre à la définition d’une PME telle que développée dans la recommandation 2033/361/EC de la Commission du 6 mai 2003.

Cette année, il sera possible d’introduire des demandes de subventions du 23 janvier 2023 au 15 décembre 2023. Attention, le Fonds est limité et disponible selon le principe du « premier arrivé, premier servi ».

Veuillez noter également que les demandes de subvention doivent être introduites et acceptées AVANT de procéder aux dépôts. Mieux vaut donc ne pas tarder !

N’hésitez pas à nous contacter pour obtenir davantage d’informations sur les modalités pratiques de cette subvention. Tout comme en 2022, l’équipe d’Office Freylinger se fera un plaisir de vous accompagner dans cette démarche !

Connexion | SME Fund (europa.eu)

We, Office Freylinger SA have been delighted to assist our client, ACCESSIT SARL in the opposition proceedings in relation to their trademark against .

We are very happy to announce that the Benelux Court of Justice rendered its decision in our client’s favour by following our submitted observations emphasising that despite the similarities between both signs regarding the descriptive verbal element “LUXAUTO, the signs differ in many aspects including the typeface used, the choice of colours, the designs, the number, position and size of the graphic elements.

The Court confirms the BOIP’sopposition decision that these different elements are more decisive for the overall appreciation of the sign of the trademark than the common descriptive word element and thus no likelihood of confusion could be determined. 

The decision of the Benelux Court of Justice can be accessed in full here.

Philippe Ocvirk recognized as World´s Leading IP Strategists by IAM

Congratulations to Philippe Ocvirk for being recognized as the World´s Leading IP Strategists by IAM Strategy 300 – 2022 

Nouveau Comité de Direction

Office Freylinger est heureux d’accueillir au sein de son Comité de Direction Marie-Christine Simon, Directeur Marques, ainsi que Pascale Vandorpe, Directeur Formalités.

Marie-Christine fait partie de notre Office depuis plus de 16 ans et était depuis octobre 2019 notre Head of Trademarks.  Elle est European Trademark and Design Attorney, Luxembourg IP Attorney (Conseil en Propriété Industrielle).  Elle est autorisée à exercer devant l’Office Benelux de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OBPI), l’Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO) et l’Organisation Mondiale de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OMPI). 

Pascale Vandorpe, qui a rejoint notre office en 2002, était depuis 2019 responsable des Formalités et en charge du développement de toutes les formalités (brevets, marques, dessins, annuités, traductions, enregistrements), de l’application de la politique commerciale, du respect des délais, de la qualité et des procédures.

Nouveau site internet !

C’est avec plaisir que nous vous informons de la publication de notre nouveau site internet.

Après plusieurs mois de développement, nous sommes heureux de pouvoir vous présenter la vitrine de notre société sur la toile.  

Ce site a été pensé pour nos clients, pour nos partenaires mais aussi pour toute personne intéressée par la PI.

Nomination de Marie-Christine Simon au poste de Directeur Marques

Office Freylinger a le plaisir de vous annoncer la nomination de Marie-Christine Simon au poste de Directeur Marques.  

Marie-Christine fait partie de notre cabinet depuis plus de 16 ans et était depuis octobre 2019 notre Head of Trademarks.

Marie-Christine est European Trademark and Design Attorney et Luxembourg IP Attorney (Conseil en Propriété Industrielle).  Elle est autorisée à exercer devant l’Office Benelux de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OBPI), l’Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO) et l’Organisation Mondiale de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OMPI). 

Marie-Christine et son équipe se tiennent à votre entière disposition, en français, en anglais et en allemand, pour vous conseiller dans la stratégie de dépôt de protection, les litiges liés aux marques, dessins et noms de domaine, des audits des portefeuille de droits de PI ainsi que des recherches de marques.

Leurs domaines d’expertise sont les suivants : Marques, Dessins & Modèles, Contrat de licences, Noms de domaines, Logiciels et droits d’auteurs.