McDonald's vs. "McCurry"by Michele Cheplic | More from this Blogger 10 Sep 2006 12:43 PM Chock another one up for the big guy. According to news reports, American burger chain (make that powerhouse) McDonald's has just won a five-year legal battle against a tiny Malaysian restaurant called "McCurry." A London newspaper reports that attorneys for the fast-food giant persuaded a judge that potential customers might confuse "McCurry" with McDonald's. "McCurry" is a 24-hour open-air restaurant, which "serves spicy fish-head curries, tandoori chicken and other Indian delicacies on a street corner in Malaysia," under a large neon "McCurry" sign. According to court documents, McDonald's claimed: "The defendant's use of the word "McCurry" and employing signage featuring colors distinctive of the plaintiff's was indulging in acts that could rise to confusion and deception." Personally, it sounds like a bunch a legal mumbo jumbo. What's more, the owners of the curry house maintained that they never intended to dupe passers-by into thinking they were a McDonald's; rather they argued that "McCurry" was just an abbreviation for "Malaysian Chicken Curry." The bottom line for the "McCurry" owners is this: the court ordered them to drop the "Mc" from their signage. However, a local Malaysian news agency said the restaurant planned to appeal the ruling. Personally, I am glad they are. Granted, I have never been to Malaysia, and I haven't walked passed the "McCurry," but I think it would be safe to say that if I did I would not mistaken an "open-air restaurant" that serves "spicy fish-head curries" as an American burger joint. I do realize that McDonald's restaurants outside of the United States feature regional fare on their menus. (In fact, they do so within the United States as well. At the McDonald's in Hawaii you can order Portuguese sausage, eggs and rice for breakfast and an Asian inspired soup called saimin for lunch.) My point is simply this: Here's this tiny restaurant in Malaysia that gets hauled into court by a mega-giant like McDonald's and is now forced to shell out who knows how much money to change their name and their signage because of a court order. Fair or unfair? What do you think? Learn more about Michele Cheplic  Michele Cheplic was born and raised in Hilo, Hawaii, but now lives in Wisconsin. Michele graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison with a degree in Journalism. Relevantpopular culture tags User Comments kenny (5) 14 Dec 2006 08:04 PMI eat at the restaurant everytimes. I have never though of Macdonald just simple because I want to eat curry and not the name. Same If I want to eat burger I will think of macdonald, so but a big case here? I'm not eat the name of the restaurant. I will only eat the food of the restaurant.  Valorie Delp (49340) 15 Dec 2006 06:55 AMGood grief! There are a thousand and one knock offs in NYC. How about Kansas Fried Chicken for one? Or the several variations of Ray's Pizza (Ray's 1st World Famous Pizza, Ray's Famous Pizza, Ray's World Famous Pizza, Ray's Pizza Hut) or how about the series of "hut" restaurants that serve a variety of foods but all look like our beloved pizza hut with the red roof. (Taco Hut, Papaya Hut, etc.) The rest of these mega chain restaurants step up to the plate and offer better service, better food, or better something to compete with the mom and pop knock offs. If the Colonel Sanders can do it better than Kansas Fried Chicken--and this is in a major metropolitan place--it's disappointing that Mickey D's can't do the same in Malaysia. Very poor corporate decision. Community Tags legal war, mcdonald's, McCurry, Malaysia, restaurant Discuss this article
|
Popular Culture categories |
