# data[].attributes.body
My role for the project was to provide an overview of the trademark analysis. I gave a brief summary of the trademark dispute and stated what would be involved in the trademark analysis. I also organised the different group meetings we had to discuss the project.

# data[].attributes.body
Our first discussion as a group was through WhatsApp. We set a date for our first zoom meeting which was on the 9th of April

# data[].attributes.body
McDonalds is an American fast-food chain that was founded in 1940 and is now recognised globally in over 100 countries. Supermacs is an Irish owned fast-food chain founded in 1978. It is Irelands largest fast food restaurant chain with over 100 restaurants across the country.

In this analysis we recognise McDonalds as the senior mark and Supermacs as the junior mark.

This discussion will explore issues of the likelihood of confusion focusing on the similarities between the visuals and pronunciation of the trademarks.

The European Union intellectual property office (EUIPO) defines a trademark as "signs used in trade to identify products." These are signs that distinguish companies and their products from their competitors.

In March 2014 Supermacs applied to the EUIPO to register their trademark for ‘Supermacs’ in the EU. McDonalds opposed this application and  (O’Keefe 2016) states that “The focus of their opposition was based on a provision of the Community Trade Mark Regulation”. They argued that there was too much similarity between the trademarks ‘Supermacs’ and ‘BigMac’ and that this would confuse the public.

Shuy (2002: 182–83) writes, “issues of phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicography,

semantics, pragmatics, and discourse...are likely to be relevant in a trademark case”. These different linguistic features are examined in further detail in relation to the trademarks in this analysis. The trademarks ‘Supermacs’ and ‘BigMac’ are also explored in relation to strength of mark.

The similarity between the trademarks has prevented Supermacs from expanding into the UK and across Europe. In January 2019, Supermacs decided to appeal to the EUIPO to cancel the ‘BigMac’ trademark that McDonalds has in the EU. “Under EU law, genuine use of a trademark exists where it is used to guarantee the identity of the origin of goods”. (Hamilton 2019)  Supermacs were victorious in this dispute against McDonalds.

The EUIPO found that “McDonald’s had not proven genuine use of Big Mac, which it trademarked in 1996, as a burger or restaurant name”. (Carrol 2019) This victory will now allow Supermacs to expand beyond Ireland.

In a second trademark dispute between Supermacs and McDonalds, Supermacs challenged the use of the ‘Mc’ prefix on  products from McDonalds. This dispute resulted in another partial victory for the Irish fast-food chain Supermacs.

The EUIPO ruled that McDonalds can no longer claim ownership of the prefix ‘Mc’ on food products sold in the EU. McDonalds can, however, keep the prefix on some core menu items.

In a previous dispute between McDonalds and Quality Inns International (a hotel), linguist Roger W. Shuy explored the semantic meaning of the prefix ‘Mc’. His work will be looked at in further detail in this analysis. The semantics of the prefix 'Mc' will also be discussed.

Hu (2014) states that “A trademark on an item informs the consumer that a company has manufactured the item that they put their trust in and that they are guaranteed a certain level of performance by that product.” It seems that McDonalds believe that the prefix ‘Mc’ on their products is synonymous to them and something that their consumers recognise as being quality products specifically from McDonalds.

This analysis will include a further discussion of the distinctiveness of this prefix as a trademark.

References

Carrol, R. (2019) McDonald's loses Big Mac trademark after legal battle with Irish chain The Guardian

Hamilton, P (2019) Supermac’s wins trademark battle with McDonald’s The Irish Times

Hu, P. (2014) A linguistic study of the distinctiveness of a trademark. Vol. 3 No. 1 NTUT J. of Intell. Prop. L. & Mgmt.

O’Keefe, C (2016) The Big Mac v Supermac’s William Fry

Shuy, R (2002) Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes pp. 182-183

# data[].attributes.body
My role for the project was to carry out part of the trademark analysis. I focused on the 'Mc' vs 'Mac' confusion in terms of pronunciation and phonemes and also meaning as a mode for likelihood of confusion.

# data[].attributes.body
My role for the project was to provide a visual representation of the trademark analysis. I focused on the colour, typeface and orthography to encounter similarities and differences between the marks.

# data[].attributes.body
McDonalds is no stranger to trademark battles but, they are not used to losing them. So much so that Pat McDonagh, the founder and owner of Supermac’s, said McDonald’s had become a global “trademark bully.” (O'Loughlin, 2019). Thus, when Supermacs challenged the “Mc” trademark against McDonalds and won, it opened up a new path for businesses in the European Union.

The ruling was decided by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and states that the “exclusive claim to the “Mc” trademark” will no longer belong to McDonalds because “McDonalds had not proved genuine use of the prefix on some of its trademarked products.” (Davies, 2019). The decision goes off of the basis that trademarks are “ a word, expression, logo, or other marking device that identifies the source of the goods, product or service,” (Shuy, 2002). Hence, the evidence provided by Mcdonalds was not strong enough in regards to trademark standards.

In addition, one of the main factors on the decision came down to the strength of the mark. This case can be categorised as what Butters defines as a strength of mark case. That is “in strength-of-mark cases, the owner of the senior mark challenges the use or projected use of the competitor’s junior mark as INFRINGEMENT. The junior’s owner generally claims that the senior mark is either generic or descriptive without secondary meaning.” (Butters, 2010). Although this was not written specifically as a linguistic analysis for the battle between McDonalds and Supermacs, the conclusion is still relative as the companies involved each fall under one of those mark categories.

Also, marks are “bits of linguistic or semiotic material that people, corporations, and institutions in a very real but limited sense own” which in this case is the prefix ‘Mc’ (Butters, 2010). This trademark was holding Supermacs back from expanding throughout the European Union. It should be noted that “ in 1988, the European Council of Ministers proposed such harmonization to European Union member states. In 1993 the Council of the European Union of Community Trade Mark Regulation adopted the Community Trade Mark (CTM), enforceable in all EC countries.” (Shuy, 2002). For this reason, Supermacs and other corporations could not expand throughout the European Union.
Since the ruling was in favour of Supermacs, McDonalds no longer holds exclusive rights over ‘Mc’. Supermacs argument was heard and understood as  “'Mc' was a "very common prefix for surnames throughout Ireland, the United Kingdom and elsewhere throughout the European Union" (BBC News, 2019). Moreover, Supermacs were not the only business celebrating as it has been stated that "this is a great victory for business in general and stops bigger companies from “trademark bullying” by not allowing them to hoard trademarks without using them.” (

This type of trademark battle is not new for McDonalds. In fact, a previous case was fought in the court decades earlier which also challenged McDonalds regarding the use of the prefix ‘Mc’. This case, McDonald’s Restaurants v. Quality Inns International, had a different ruling because “He [ the judge ] also opined that if Quality Inns were to adopt the name, McSleep Inn, this would be likely to confuse the public into thinking the hotels were owned or operated by McDonald’s” (Shuy, 2012). Since this decision was made in 1987 there have been an ample amount of changes made as they were not as victorious when battling against  Supermacs for the prefix ‘Mc’.

# data[].attributes.body
Sound: [Mæk] vs [mək]

There is a likelihood of confusion with sound due to the number of phonemes, the prefix and suffix use and the inclusion of a schwa. The prefix 'Mc' and suffix 'Mac' are the dominant features of this trademark analysis. Significantly, both trademarks are used in the selling of fast food which can lead to product and brand confusion. McDonald’s starts with the prefix ‘Mc’ whilst ‘Supermac’s’ concludes with suffix ‘Mac.’ ‘Mac’ could therefore  be confused with the family of ‘Mc’ items on the menu in McDonald’s however as the prefix ‘Mc’ is at the start of the word and ‘Mac’ is a suffix and is therefore word-final, the likelihood of confusion is reduced given that the appear in different word positions. The IPA transcriptions are both composed of three phonemes of which two phonemes overlap. There are vowel differences in the second phoneme [æ] vs [ə] however, there pronunciations are vastly similar and it is difficult to determine whether a speaker is referring to ‘Mc’ or ‘Mac.’ Therefore, aurally these marks are the same and the prefix is also for the most part phonetically the same. The initial parts of these marks which are the ‘mac’ and ‘mc’ are both pronounced with the letter with the inclusion of a ‘schwa’ or murmured vowel.

Meaning:

As the marks are morphemes and prefixes and suffixes, they carry no real meaning however, their meaning is associated with fast food and consumers use the ‘Mc’  and ‘Mac’ to distinguish between the services. In addition to this, the development of the iconic ‘Big Mac’ and Supermac’s desire to have a ‘Supermac’ evidently can result in likelihood of confusion as ‘Mc’ and ‘Mac’ follow similar qualifiers in ‘big’ and ‘super.’

Personal Reflection
Given the dispute centred around a prefix rather than a word with semantic meaning, it was difficult to carry out both phonological and semantic analyses of the features 'Mc' and 'Mac.' Therefore, much of the likelihood of confusion stems from the associated meanings of different burger types and fast food chains rather than the actual prefix given that 'mc' and 'mac' do not carry semantic meaning. Additionally, phonological analysis proved difficult given the lack of phonemes in 'mc' and 'mac.'

# data[].attributes.body
From an initial perspective, both marks possess similar colours. The Senior mark has yellow arches of the letter 'M', with white letters on a red background. The Junior mark has red letters on a white background. This similarity of colours can cause confusion for consumers upon visually perceiving the marks. Although both marks contain upper and lower case letters, the fonts that are used are significantly different. McDonald's uses an eye catching bold roman font whilst Supermac's font is more thin and italicized. The contrast of the bold font against the bright colours suggest that the Senior mark stands out more to consumers. With regards to orthography, both marks are consistent with spelling. However,  differences occur in that the prefix 'Mc' is used in the Senior mark and the suffix 'Mac' in the Junior mark. Again this can create a likelihood of confusion for consumers.

# data[].attributes.body
Once organised, we went ahead with our first meeting as a group on zoom. It took place on 9th April at 1pm.  In this meeting we discussed the trademark in greater detail. We then assigned each group member a role in the project.

We then scheduled a second zoom  meeting on 20th April at 1pm where we discussed the different work that everyone had done. We also arranged the columns on Padlet.

In our final zoom meeting we read through our work one last time to make sure everyone was happy and submitted the project.

# data[].attributes.body
BBC News. (2019, August 06). McDonald's loses second 'Mc' trademark case against Supermac's. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49254551#:~:text=McDonald's%20loses%20second%20'Mc'%20trademark%20case%20against%20Supermac's,-6%20August%202019&text=McDonald's%20has%20lost%20its%20exclusive,an%20Irish%20fast%20food%20chain.

Butters, R. R. (2010). Trademark linguistics Trademarks: Language that one owns. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, 379-392. doi:10.4324/9780203855607-38

Davies, T. (2019, September 13). The Mc is Back – McDonald's loses second "Mc" trademark case against Supermac's. Retrieved from https://www.capital-law.co.uk/news/2019/09/13/the-mc-is-back-mcdonalds-loses-second-mc-trademark-case-against-supermacs/

O'Loughlin, E. (2019, January 16). An Irish Burger Chain Claims a Trademark Win Over McDonald's. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/business/supermacs-big-mac-mcdonalds.html

RTE News, (2019, January 15). 'End of the McBully' - Supermac's wins McDonald's case. Retrieved from https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0115/1023322-supermacs-mcdonalds-trademark-row/

Reuters Staff. (2019, January 15). McDonald's loses 'Big Mac' trademark case to Irish chain Supermac's. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mcdonald-s-corp-trademark-supermacs/mcdonalds-loses-big-mac-trademark-case-to-irish-chain-supermacs-idUSKCN1P92JA

Shuy R. (2002) A Very Brief Introduction to Trademarks for Linguists. In: Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554757_3

Shuy, R. W. (2012). Using Linguistics in Trademark Cases. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.013.0033

Williams, J. (2019, January 24). "Use it or lose it" – European Judges cancel "Big Mac" trademark after landmark case. Retrieved from https://www.capital-law.co.uk/news/2019/01/24/use-it-or-lose-it-european-judges-cancel-big-mac-trademark-after-landmark-case/

# data[].attributes.body
My role for the project was to review the official trademark design and linguistically analyse it.