McDonald's McIre directed towards a girl ...

[jackfaire]

This was an interesting link about the situation.

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2010/0...-whine-pieces/

[elsporko]

It would be one thing if the person who created the charity had a different last name and used a similar symbol as McDonalds, but this situation seems coincidental. I would hate to see a corporation able to destroy any new group that has a similar name as them.

[jackfaire]

It would be one thing if the person who created the charity had a different last name and used a similar symbol as McDonalds, but this situation seems coincidental. I would hate to see a corporation able to destroy any new group that has a similar name as them.

Read the link I posted. McDonald's isn't asking that she stop using the name they are asking she not be allowed to trademark the name. This wouldn't stop her from using it nor force her to change it.

[Anthony K. S.]

I read the piece that jackfaire linked to, and it was very enlightening.

So, completely contrary to what so many people believe, the facts are :

1) McDonald's is NOT suing Lauren McClusky. They are not trying to take any money away from her or her charity.

2) McDonald's is NOT trying to stop Ms. McClusky from holding her concert series to raise money for the Special Olympics.

3) McDonald's is NOT asking for Ms. McClusky to change the name of her concert series.

McDonald's is perfectly okay with Ms. McClusky's concerts, and they are okay with her naming it "McFest."

They only object to her attempt to register the name as a trademark, because it creates a legal foothold into what they consider to be their trademark territory.

And with good reason, apparently :

Look at it this way, if Ms. McClusky got her registration for McFest, then she could potentially license that trademark to Burger King for a concert festival. Yeah, really. Either that, or she could expand her tiny McFiefdom, and eventually cause some real branding problems for Grimace and the gang. Sure, the likelihood is low, but McDonalds didn’t get where it is by being lackadaisical about its trademark rights.

The real question here is . . . Why did Lauren McClusky apply for a trademark registration for her concert series in the first place?

What could she possibly have hoped to gain? What was she afraid was going to happen if she didn't obtain a trademark registration?

Is she planning on suing a competitor? Is she going to license the name to other companies? Is she looking to sell her charity? Honestly, why does an annual concert that raises money for the Special Olympics need a trademark registration in the first place?

. . .

The fact that the McFest has spent $5,000 fighting this so far is an indication that something greater is at stake — or just that Ms. McClusky is not making rational or informed decisions.

Lauren McClusky has lamented the fact that she has spent $5,000 on legal fees for this trademark issue, money that she wishes had gone to the Special Olympics instead . . . But that was by her choice.

She was the one who insisted on pressing ahead with a trademark registration application . . . for a concert charity? Why?

I took a look at the comments on the original article, which, predictably, all seem to be siding with Ms. McClusky . . . It is so easy for people to jump on the bandwagon of bashing the big evil corporation attacking the little charity, without ever bothering to find out what is really going on.

[joe hx]

Great points, Anthony

So when is the lawsuit between McDonald's and Apple (MacIntosh) going to be?

[jackfaire]

Great points, Anthony

So when is the lawsuit between McDonald's and Apple (MacIntosh) going to be?

McDonald's is typically sounds like "Micdonalds"

Macintosh comes out as "Macintosh"

And Macintosh brands themselves as Apple hence not really even close to the turf of the other.

[HYHYBT]

Probably one of the reasons new Apple products of the last twelve years have been prefixed with 'i' instead of 'Mac'.

[Slytovhand]

Obviously, I should get a corporate lawyer's views on this, but what the hell.....

Firstly, McDonalds can go .. jump. "We've had a much bigger marketing budget" is not a good enough reason to stifle other people's rights to a name.

Secondly, why should she want to register it? Maybe so that someone else doesn't try to take the name and maliciously (intendedly or not!). Perhaps there are other laws etc that relate - such as for business registration, taxation, incorporated charities etc. She's basically doing what any company does - makes sure it's name can only be used for it's purposes - what's so nefarious about that?

Thirdly, similarities.. tough! That's the way the world is!

As for the sponsorship, as someone else mentioned, if she accepted, there'd be all sorts of loops to jump through... don't go there!

[Rapscallion]

Obviously, I should get a corporate lawyer's views on this, but what the hell.....

Try reading the blog posted above. The one provided by a lawyer.

Firstly, McDonalds can go .. jump. "We've had a much bigger marketing budget" is not a good enough reason to stifle other people's rights to a name.

They're not stifling her rights to her name. They've opposed her attempt to trademark it. Huge difference. The trademark people, as far as I can see, have yet to rule on it. They've not gone to court to claim she can't use the name.

Secondly, why should she want to register it? Maybe so that someone else doesn't try to take the name and maliciously (intendedly or not!). Perhaps there are other laws etc that relate - such as for business registration, taxation, incorporated charities etc. She's basically doing what any company does - makes sure it's name can only be used for it's purposes - what's so nefarious about that?

Maybe that's McD's reasoning? See, as per the blog posted above, if she got the registration she could license it to anyone. Imagine Burger King leasing the name for a while and holding a McFest.

I'm all for people boycotting companies for them acting unethically, but do so for genuine reasons. Boycott them for the quality of their food, the rain forest deforestation, and so forth if that bothers you. If they'd sued this girl and tried to claim that she shouldn't use the name she'd be on my list of favourite causes, but they haven't.

What's her reasons for trying to trademark it? To get publicity for herself having realised that she'd become a cause celebre overnight as the plucky underdog against the corporate lawyers? That's what happened.

Me? I don't eat there. Too much fat and not keen on the taste. On this particular ground? I cannot see a problem.

Rapscallion