McDonald's VS McCurry: The Case History

The verdict on the McCurry vs McDonald's case has finally arrived. Indian Food outlet McCurry Restaurant in Malaysia has won its case against world renowned Fast food chain McDonald's on Monday (27^th April 2009). According to the court's jurisdiction, McDonald's does not have the sole right on the prefix "Mc". McCurry restaurant, Malaysia has been allowed to keep the prefix in its name.

The recent judgement has reversed a three year old judgement, in which the court has given a verdict in favour of McDonald's in the McCurry vs McDonald's case. In September 2006, the Malaysian High Court Judge, Siti Mariah Ahmad had ruled against Malaysia's McCurry restaurant owners who were defendants in McCurry vs McDonald's case. The company had filed the case in the year 2001, saying that the McCurry restaurant is violating their trademark prefix "Mc".

The lawyers of McDonald's restaurant had argued that they have exclusive rights on the prefix and only they can use it on their products and services. They had said that McDonald's has created this prefix and has the right to protect it under the law. According to McDonald's, McCurry was infringing their creative rights by using the prefix in their name. They wanted the court to ban the McCurry from using the prefix.

But the defendants promptly denied any such claims. They said that McDonald's cannot have a creative right over the prefix "Mc" as it is not created by them. The prefix is used in surnames all over Europe and especially in Scotland. They also argued that the title McCurry is an abbreviation of "Malaysian Chicken Curry" as the restaurant servers Indian and Malaysian cuisines.

But at that time, the high court judge was convinced by arguments given by McDonald's and gave the judgement in favour of the plaintiff. The court told the owners of McCurry that they did not have the right to use the prefix and must immediately drop it from the title or change the name of their restaurant.

Hearing this verdict on McCurry vs McDonald's, the award winning photographer, Steve McCurry commented, "It is kind of funny but I guess what is more important is the quality of the food," McCurry has won four top prizes in the World Press Photo Contest.

The owners of McCurry restaurant in Malaysia were also not happy by this verdict and decided to appeal against it in the court. Finally, the decision of the appeal court on McCurry vs McDonald's came on Monday, 27^th April 2009.

The decision came in the favour of McCurry. The decision was taken by appeal court judges Datuk Gopal Sri Ram, Datuk Heliliah Mohd. Yusof and Datuk Sulong Matjeraie. They found that McDonald's doesn't have any evidence to show that the McCurry Restaurant in Malaysia was trying to pose itself as a business owned by McDonald's.

Here, one must mention that McDonald's is a multinational fast food chain which has over 30,000 restaurants in over 100 countries. McDonald's serve around 47 million people. It serves western food such as burgers, rolls, shakes and French fries. It owns more than 174 restaurants in Malaysia only.

McCurry restaurant on the other hand, is a small local restaurant in Malaysia. It is a 24 hour restaurant which serves authentic Malaysian and Indian dishes. It serves traditional dishes like teh tarik, roti canai, nasi lemak, nasi briyani, fish head curry, chicken tandoori, naan bread, tosai, chapaati and various chicken and mutton curry dishes.

The appeal court Judge, Gopal Sri Ram overturned the 2006's ruling in the McCurry vs McDonald's case. He said, "Where the learned judge, with respect, erred is to assume that McDonald's had a monopoly in the use of the prefix ‘Mc' on a signage or in the conduct of business." He added, "In my judgment, the irresistible inference to be drawn from the totality of the evidence is that McCurry's Restaurant signboard would not result in reasonable persons associating McCurry with the McDonald's mark."

In an 18 page judgement, Judge Sri Ram said, "For the reasons given, I would allow McCurry Restaurant's appeal and reverse the findings of the learned judge".

Judge Sri Ram, said, "The defendant's (McCurry) signboard carried the words ‘Restoran McCurry' with the lettering in white and grey on a red background with a picture of a chicken giving a double thumbs up and with the wording, ‘Malaysian Chicken Curry."

Adding the fact that McCurry Restaurant doesn't have any dish that has the prefix "Mc" attached with it; unlike every food item served in McDonald's restaurant. Judge Sri Ram said, "Thus, the defendant's presentation of its business is in a style and getup which is distinctly different from that of the plaintiff. It would have been different if McCurry Restaurant had offered to its customers, items that were labelled either the same as or similar to those sold by McDonald's, for example McFish or McLamb."

McDonald's had stated in the court that prefix "Mc" is their trademark. They said that the use of this prefix will show that McCurry is affiliated with McDonald's restaurant. But in their defence, McCurry Restaurant's owner said that the prefix is not owned by McDonald's restaurant and they can't monopolize it. McCurry Restaurant also stated that their menu is completely different from that of McDonald's and doesn't reflect its cuisine in any way.

This latest judgement in McCurry vs McDonald's case has been very encouraging news for the owners of McCurry restaurant in Malaysia as they can now peacefully continue with their business. They know that they are some of the very few businessmen in the world who decide to take on a large multinational and emerge triumphant in the end. The judgement has put an end to a 5 year old court battle between the two enterprises.