Scribd
Upload
171 views2 pages

Mcdonald'S Corporation V. L.C. Big Mak Burger (G.R. No. 143993)

This case involves a trademark dispute between McDonald's and L.C. Big Mak Burger regarding their marks "Big Mac" and "Big Mak" used on hamburgers. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that: 1) "Big Mac" is a valid and distinctive trademark that can be exclusively owned by McDonald's. 2) There is likely consumer confusion between the marks "Big Mac" and "Big Mak" due to their dominant similarities in sound, appearance, and spelling. 3) L.C. Big Mak Burger's use of the "Big Mak" mark constitutes unfair competition because it creates the same general appearance as McDonald's goods with the intent to deceive consumers.

Uploaded by

Anida Domiangca
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
171 views2 pages

Mcdonald'S Corporation V. L.C. Big Mak Burger (G.R. No. 143993)

This case involves a trademark dispute between McDonald's and L.C. Big Mak Burger regarding their marks "Big Mac" and "Big Mak" used on hamburgers. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that: 1) "Big Mac" is a valid and distinctive trademark that can be exclusively owned by McDonald's. 2) There is likely consumer confusion between the marks "Big Mac" and "Big Mak" due to their dominant similarities in sound, appearance, and spelling. 3) L.C. Big Mak Burger's use of the "Big Mak" mark constitutes unfair competition because it creates the same general appearance as McDonald's goods with the intent to deceive consumers.

Uploaded by

Anida Domiangca
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MCDONALD’S CORPORATION V. L.C. BIG MAK BURGER (G.R. NO.

143993)

Facts:

Petitioner McDonald’s, an American corporation operating a global chain of fast-food restaurants, is the
owner of the ‘Big Mac’ mark for its double-decker hamburger sandwich here and in the US. Meanwhile,
respondent L.C., a domestic corporation which operates fast-food outlets and snack vans applied for the
registration of the ‘Big Mak’ mark for its hamburger sandwiches. Petitioner opposed on the ground that
‘Big Mak’ was a colorable imitation of its registered ‘Big Mac’ mark for the same food products.
Respondents denied there is colorable imitation and argued that petitioner cannot exclusively
appropriate the mark ‘Big Mac’ because the word ‘Big’ is a generic and descriptive term. Petitioner filed
a complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The trial court found for petitioners. CA
held otherwise.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not the word ‘Big Mac’ can be exclusively appropriated by petitioner;

(2) Whether or not there is colorable imitation resulting in likelihood of confusion;

(3) Whether or not there is unfair competition.

Ruling:

(1) YES. A mark is valid if it is “distinctive” and thus not barred from registration under Section 4 of RA
166. However, once registered, not only the mark’s validity but also the registrant’s ownership of the
mark is prima facie presumed. The “Big Mac” mark, which should be treated in its entirety and not
dissected word for word, is neither generic nor descriptive. Generic marks are commonly used as the
name or description of a kind of goods, such as “Lite” for beer or “Chocolate Fudge” for chocolate soda
drink. Descriptive marks, on the other hand, convey the characteristics, functions, qualities or
ingredients of a product to one who has never seen it or does not know it exists, such as “Arthriticare”
for arthritis medication. On the contrary, “Big Mac” falls under the class of fanciful or arbitrary marks as
it bears no logical relation to the actual characteristics of the product it represents. As such, it is highly
distinctive and thus valid. Significantly, the trademark “Little Debbie” for snack cakes was found
arbitrary or fanciful.

(2) YES. In determining likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed two tests, the dominancy
test and the holistic test. The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the
competing trademarks that might cause confusion. In contrast, the holistic test requires the court to
consider the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, in
determining confusing similarity. This Court, however, has relied on the dominancy test rather than the
holistic test. The test of dominancy is now explicitly incorporated into law in Section 155.1 of the
Intellectual Property Code which defines infringement as the “colorable imitation of a registered mark
xxx or a dominant feature thereof.”

Applying the dominancy test, the Court finds that respondents’ use of the “Big Mak” mark results in
likelihood of confusion. Aurally the two marks are the same, with the first word of both marks
phonetically the same, and the second word of both marks also phonetically the same. Visually, the two
marks have both two words and six letters, with the first word of both marks having the same letters
and the second word having the same first two letters. In spelling, considering the Filipino language,
even the last letters of both marks are the same. Clearly, respondents have adopted in “Big Mak” not
only the dominant but also almost all the features of “Big Mac.” Applied to the same food product of
hamburgers, the two marks will likely result in confusion in the public mind. Certainly, “Big Mac” and
“Big Mak” for hamburgers create even greater confusion, not only aurally but also visually. Indeed, a
person cannot distinguish “Big Mac” from “Big Mak” by their sound. When one hears a “Big Mac” or “Big
Mak” hamburger advertisement over the radio, one would not know whether the “Mac” or “Mak” ends
with a “c” or a “k.”

(3) YES. The essential elements of an action for unfair competition are (1) confusing similarity in the
general appearance of the goods, and (2) intent to deceive the public and defraud a competitor. The
confusing similarity may or may not result from similarity in the marks, but may result from other
external factors in the packaging or presentation of the goods. The intent to deceive and defraud may
be inferred from the similarity of the appearance of the goods as offered for sale to the public. Actual
fraudulent intent need not be shown. Unfair competition is broader than trademark infringement and
includes passing off goods with or without trademark infringement. Trademark infringement is a form of
unfair competition. Trademark infringement constitutes unfair competition when there is not merely
likelihood of confusion, but also actual or probable deception on the public because of the general
appearance of the goods. There can be trademark infringement without unfair competition as when the
infringer discloses on the labels containing the mark that he manufactures the goods, thus preventing
the public from being deceived that the goods originate from the trademark owner.

Respondents’ goods are hamburgers which are also the goods of petitioners. Since respondents chose to
apply the “Big Mak” mark on hamburgers, just like petitioner’s use of the “Big Mac” mark on
hamburgers, respondents have obviously clothed their goods with the general appearance of
petitioners’ goods. There is actually no notice to the public that the “Big Mak” hamburgers are products
of “L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc.” and not those of petitioners who have the exclusive right to the “Big Mac”
mark. This clearly shows respondents’ intent to deceive the public. We hold that as found by the RTC,
respondent corporation is liable for unfair competition.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy