McDonald’s Loses Legal Battle Against McCurry

McHELL YEAH!!! Reading that headline made my day. I’m lov’in it. Corporate giants McUnhealthy aren’t so McTough and should McLearn to McRelax their sax every now and McThen:

Malaysia McDonalds Battle

McCurry restaurant owner A.M.S.P. Suppiah and wife Kanageswary pose for a photo in front of their eatery as they celebrate a court victory over U.S. fast food giant McDonald’s Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

[McAssociated Press: McDonald’s loses trademark fight against McCurry]

Wife of McCurry restaurant owner Kanageswary Suppiah, left, helps serve a meal as a staff member looks after a court victory over U.S. fast food giant McDonald's in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2009.

“U.S. fast food giant McDonald’s lost an eight-year trademark battle to prevent local restaurant McCurry from using the ‘Mc’ prefix in a precedent-setting judgment by Malaysia’s highest court. The Federal Court ruled Tuesday that McDonald’s cannot appeal against another court’s verdict that had allowed McCurry to use ‘Mc’ in its name.

The owner says McCurry, which serves Indian food, is an abbreviation for Malaysian Chicken Curry. The ruling by a three-member panel of the Federal Court ends all legal avenues for McDonald’s to protect its name from what it said was a trademark infringement. “On the basis of unanimous decision, our view is that” McDonald’s plea to carry the case forward has no merit, said chief judge Arifin Zakaria.

It is unfortunate that we have to dismiss the application with costs,” he said. McDonald’s will have to pay 10,000 ringgit ($2,900) to McCurry, a popular eatery in Jalan Ipoh on the edge of Kuala Lumpur’s downtown. McDonald’s lawyers refused to comment, except to say the company will abide by the judgment.”

Way To Go!

~ by Fionnlagh on September 9, 2009.

3 Responses to “McDonald’s Loses Legal Battle Against McCurry”

  1. The recent McDonald’s v. McCurry ruling is not surprising. Just by the three main DuPont factors alone, appearance, sound and meaning, these two marks are arguably not confusingly similar. Add to that the difference in menus, and the difference in trade dress, and you have a pretty strong case for McCurry, which the panel seemingly accepted. The letters “Mc” cannot be totally, exclusively owned by one entity worldwide. And it’s not as if people are going to mix up McCurry with McDonalds. Now, if McCurry used the golden arches, had a clown and similar characters associated with the restaurant, that would be problematic. Those elements were not present in this case. On our site,, we help with these trademark issues and any trademark questions.

  2. iAgree with your iStatement: It’s a good iDay for the small iBusiness owner against big iMoney-hungry iCorporations. iWish Suppiah and Kanageswary all the iBest in their iEndeavours.

    P.S: any iLuck finding your iPod?

  3. Brilliant Suppiah. You make Malaysians so proud!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: