McDonald's McIre directed towards a girl ...

[IDrinkaRum]

who dared to trademark her charity (which helps out Special Olympics) because her charity has the letters "Mc" in the name (http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/01/17/teens-charity-name-draws-the-mcire-of-mcdonalds/?icid=main|aim|dl3|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walletpo p.com%2Fblog%2F2010%2F01%2F17%2Fteens-charity-name-draws-the-mcire-of-mcdonalds%2F)

Lauren McClusky, 19, held "McFests" in the Chicago area to raise money for the Chicago Special Olympics. In 2007 and 2008, Ms. McClusky and another person who co-chaired the McFest charity raising (and the person also had a "Mc" last name) raised $30,000 for the Special Olympics. When Ms. McClusky chose to trademark the name "McFest", McDonald's lawyers chose at that time to stop her as they say McDonalds owns most of what they term "McFamily brands" (the list of such words is in the article).

Is McDonalds out of their mind or should Ms. McClusky be forced to change the name of the money-raising-for-charity-events something else?



(Sorry if this is disjointed, but my blood sugar's low & I'm wigged out on pain meds & ear infection meds :o).

[jackfaire]

I am going to have to back McDonald's on this one. Hell every term that starts with Mc anything people associate with McDonald's. This charity would also be associated with them in people's minds.

The only reason I think people will rush to her side is because of the David and Goliath effect. People love to see the corporation as the bad guys regardless of if they are right or not.

[Vagabond]

Like Jackfaire said McAnything is usually associated with McD's. I don't know why the girl wouldn't settle for the "McD's sponsors McFest".
<from article>
McClusky hopes for a truce that will allow her to keep the McFest name. Still, she's unwilling to make a corporate sponsorship tradeoff along the lines of "McDonald's Presents McFest." For their part, McDonald's representatives maintained that they have no desire to squash McClusky's charitable efforts, and desire an "amicable resolution." </end>

I'd go with the sponsorship. Seems like an 'amicable resolution'.

However, unless you have the famous arches or colors, or are trying to sell burgers and fries - they really aren't intruding on McDonald's territory. And, hell, it's for charity anyway, which McDonalds supports.
So... would McDonald's next try to just trademark the 'Mc' and sue or make people named 'Mc....' change their name? Makes me wonder how far they would go?

[jackfaire]

So... would McDonald's next try to just trademark the 'Mc' and sue or make people named 'Mc....' change their name? Makes me wonder how far they would go?

Say people have an issue with a charity that "bears their name" and decide to sue McDonald's for actions that have nothing to do with them because of an inconvenient similarity of name.

[Vagabond]

Oh. Haven't heard of that one. But I don't follow the news.

[jackfaire]

Oh. Haven't heard of that one. But I don't follow the news.



There was a legal battle over a name because people who were trying to get a subscription to Oprah's magazine ended up suscribing to a magazine of a more devious nature that though it predated her publication was forced to give up it's name because Oprah's was too similar.

[Vagabond]

Now I think THAT is unfair! If you came out first, and did all the stuff to substantiate your claim on your name - I think you ought to get first dibs.
bloody Oprah...

[jackfaire]

Now I think THAT is unfair! If you came out first, and did all the stuff to substantiate your claim on your name - I think you ought to get first dibs.
bloody Oprah...

The decision was based on which was more popular. I agree timing should have been used.

It illustrates though the importance of different names otherwise confusion arises if I am contributing to McFeats I assume I am giving to a McDonald's funded charity.

Another angle. I trust a charitable organization to put my money in the right hands. Along comes another Charity with a similar name or a name that implies a connection that abuses the funds I give them.

I just gave them a ton of money I wanted to go to another organization and I could sue them for misrepresenting themselves and have a legitimate case.

[Vagabond]

According to the article the 'McFest' sign/symbol looked different, I don't know how different, they only said Different style 'M' and different colors. McDonalds, being a big company, I'm sure would have splashed their famous arches over everything to let you know it was the real deal.
However, I'm sure you could have asked if they were sponsored by McDonalds. Hopefully, you would have received an honest answer.

But, yes, McDonalds is more popular/well-known that McFest. But the fact that they've been doing that for 2 years prior without McDonalds doing/saying anything about it, raises an eyebrow.

I think getting sponsored by McDonalds would be an amicable solution. The money raised goes to the Charity, which they are both supporters of.
But then, I could also see McDonalds setting up all kinds of rules/restrictions that McClusky may not want to follow, or have the means to follow.

[Cats]

While I will say the name is kinda on the iffy side, she did say there was a reason she did it, and I think McDonald's just has their head too far up their own ass. Just because something is more famous, does not necessarily mean it's better or the boss. Mc -prefix names are common enough, and plenty of charities are named after people's names, why should someone be punished because they share 2 letters with a well known corporation? Does that mean every undergound transit system need to change their names and can no longer be a "subway" because a sandwich chain has a trademark to that name?

[jackfaire]

Does that mean every undergound transit system need to change their names and can no longer be a "subway" because a sandwich chain has a trademark to that name?

No reasonably intelligent person would assume from hearing about the NY city subway that it was associated with Subway Restaurants. Hearing about a McCharity however one's first assumption would be that it is associated with McDonald's

[Cats]

No reasonably intelligent person would assume from hearing about the NY city subway that it was associated with Subway Restaurants. Hearing about a McCharity however one's first assumption would be that it is associated with McDonald's

I was getting more at the principle of the matter and trying to make a comparassin to show my point. I was not making a literal reference.

First assumptions are one thing, yes, but if the charity has a diclaimer saying it's not associated with McDonalds (which I think they should do), then it's no longer their fault if people don't want to read the fine print.

[Boozy]

"Mc" anything is clearly and strongly associated with McDonald's. They have to protect the "Mc" name in order to protect and maintain control over their brand. Someone hears "McFest" and plenty of people (possibly the majority) will assume that it is a McDonald's-run charity.

In fact, I have a feeling that this girl's choice of "McFest" was due to the fact that the "Mc" prefix had already been successfully branded. In a world without McDonald's, it would sound like a terribly stupid name to our ears.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I don't see why she doesn't just take the sponsership. Her charity would get more publicity, and therefore more money. What she's doing now seems to me like cutting off her nose to spite her face.

[Fryk]

I think it has to do with Ms McKlusky not wanting to lose control of her charity to the corporate sponsors. It's her baby, and she wants to keep it that way.

[jackfaire]

This was an interesting link about the situation.

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/mcdonalds-v-mcfest-boo-freakin-hoo-journalists-should-talk-to-trademark-lawyers-before-writing-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