Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.

An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.

SUPERMAC’S HAS WON the latest round of a long-running legal battle with McDonald’s over trademarks with the UK Intellectual Property Office ruling that the Irish fast-food chain’s name and logo can be registered in the UK.

Supermac’s founder and managing director, Pat McDonagh, said the decision represented another significant legal victory for his company in defending its identity against opposition from the US-multinational.

McDonald’s unsuccessfully claimed that the registration of Supermac’s marks would conflict with its existing UK trademark rights including Big Mac and McCafe.

The ruling is seen as an important development in allowing Supermac’s to move forward on its plans to develop its brand in Britain.

It was also a welcome development after a recent ruling by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EU IPO) in June dismissed the Irish company’s appeal against a decision to reject its application to have Supermac’s registered as a trade mark across the EU.

The UK IPO ruled that the respective Supermac’s and McDonald’s marks had significant visual, aural and conceptual differences which, in relation to the Mc/MAC element, were “sufficient for a consumer not to directly confuse the marks”.

Although it acknowledged that McDonald’s had a substantial reputation and extensive good will, it found that the difference between the two marks were such “that no link will be made by the average consumer.”

Commenting on the UK IPO’s decision, Supermac’s founder and managing director, Mr McDonagh, said the case was never about taking on McDonald’s but about defending the identity of an Irish business.

“We’ve never had their scale or resources, but we’ve always believed every business deserves the same protection under the law, regardless of its size,” said Mr McDonagh.

“We weren’t trying to use anyone else’s reputation. We were simply protecting our own,” he added.

The businessman said it was easy to understand why Supermac’s legal challenges, when opposed by one of the biggest brands in the world, were seen as “David versus Goliath” cases.

Mr McDonagh said the case reinforced an important principle that the law should protect businesses “on the strength of evidence, not on the size, influence or resources of the parties involved.”

The ruling follows Supermac’s successful action which resulted in a Court of Justice of the EU ruling in June 2024 which delisted “Big Mac” as a trademarked restaurant and stopped McDonald’s using the name on poultry products.

However, in a separate ruling in June, the EU IPO decided that Supermac’s logo was too close to its rival’s “Big Mac” mark to allow it to be registered as an EU trademark, although it does not affect its ability to trade under its own name in the Republic.

A EU IPO board of appeal rejected Supermac’s claim that there was no reasonable likelihood that the public would mistake a Supermac’s restaurant for a Big Mac burger.

The case arose from an application in May 2016 by the Irish company to register “Supermac’s” as an EU trademark for fast food restaurant services.

In its appeal, lawyers for Supermac’s claimed the parties had coexisted in Ireland for approximately 40 years, with no evidence of confusion between them.

It pointed out that an adverse finding would require accepting that a consumer might attend a Supermac’s restaurant expecting to purchase a Big Mac even though McDonald’s had argued that it was almost universally recognised as one of its products.

The company said the ruling lacked “logical and legal basis.”

However, McDonald’s had claimed that the boundaries between the food products and a restaurant name in the perception of the relevant public were “blurred”.

In its ruling, EU IPO said the goods and services at issue were complementary and targeted the same public so had to be regarded as at least similar to a low degree.

The board found that the “Big Mac” trademark enjoyed an enhanced degree of distinctiveness by virtue of intensive use and recognition in the EU.

The board said the more distinctive the mark, the greater the risk of confusion but also the broader protection that it enjoyed.

“It cannot be excluded that the contested sign (Supermac’s) may be perceived by the relevant public as a sub-brand or a variant of the earlier mark for another new/enhanced line of meat sandwiches,” it observed.

The board said coexistence needed to be demonstrated for the entire EU, with proof confined to Ireland deemed “inadequate.”

Mr McDonagh expressed surprise at the EU IPO ruling but said Supermac’s were considering a further appeal.

However, he said the UK IPO decision was “far more significant” in terms of the impact on its business.

To embed this post, copy the code below on your site