#本文仅代表作者观点，未经作者许可，禁止转载，不代表IPRdaily立场#

发布：IPRdaily中文网（iprdaily.cn）
作者：Daniel Bailey (Associate) 麦仕奇英国伦敦办公室
翻译：黄雪芳 (Partner) 麦仕奇北京办公室
供稿：麦仕奇知识产权
原标题：麦当劳怎么失掉Big Mac (巨无霸) 商标的？

麦当劳的“Big Mac”商标在欧盟是怎么被爱尔兰汉堡连锁快餐企业超级麦克（Supermac's）公司撤销的？如本文作者丹尼尔.贝利（Daniel Bailey）所述，因为麦当劳的证据不够。

过去几周里，关于麦当劳的消息铺天盖地，其中很多也许不为麦当劳所喜。

大西洋的那一边，美国大学生橄榄球全国联赛冠军获得者克莱姆森老虎队在白宫享用了1000个“hamberders”组成的国宴，并称之“我们吃过最好的一餐”（该说法后来遭否认）。

（译者注：特朗普总统发Twitter消息时，将汉堡包的英文hamburgers误写成hamberders）

这一边则是，麦当劳在欧盟注册的第62638号商标“BIG MAC （巨无霸）”，被爱尔兰汉堡连锁快餐企业超级麦克（Supermac's）成功撤销。

这两家连锁快餐巨头就“mac”一词的使用问题，多年来一直酣战不休。

表面看，欧盟本次撤销裁定令人震惊。“Big Mac”是全球最大的连锁快餐店出售的全球最有名的餐品之一。巨无霸在世界各地无处不在、品牌无人不晓，就连《经济学人》（The Economist）杂志都用巨无霸在全球的成本来分析各国的价差和汇率差。

本次撤销裁定并不会让麦当劳的巨无霸就此下架，但若该裁定得以进一步维持，则将有助于超级麦克（Supermac's）在欧盟市场扩张。

这是怎么发生的？

一个英国或欧盟的商标注册满5年后，如果未在注册涵盖的商品和服务上进行使用，则任何第三方均可以申请撤销该商标。

超级麦克提交了申请，要求撤销麦当劳的“BIG MAC”欧盟注册。麦当劳提交了该商标2012年4月至2017年4月间在欧盟使用的证据。这事很简单，至少看起来如此。

证据和裁定

为维护注册，麦当劳提交了其英国、法国和德国代表签署的声明、广告材料手册和打印件、公司网站打印件、维基百科的词条介绍。

声明里包含了一些销售数据，显示麦当劳2011至2016年在英国、法国、德国销售了超过14亿个巨无霸汉堡。

然而，欧盟知识产权局觉得证据不足以显示商标投入了真实使用。麦当劳提交的证据类型，尤其是其各国代表提交的声明，证明效力着实有限。

欧盟知识产权局得出结论，麦当劳的证据未提供商标使用程度的足够细节，而且材料中“没有包含任何可以证明该欧盟商标在其涵盖商品或服务上存在真实商业呈现的数据”。

如何保护你自己？

巨无霸无处不在。证据却如此无力。令人吃惊。

特别是，麦当劳本可以提供客观数据和餐厅出售巨无霸的照片以在案件中获得更有利地位。

本案对于品牌所有者是一个警醒，不论品牌大小，保留商标使用的各种记录都非常重要，这样才能在之后需要时提交具体的、客观的证据。

关于如何证明商标使用，特许商标代理人是提供这方面建议的最佳人选。

后续的进展？

官方裁定后，超级麦克发了一个声明，称“这是整个商业行业的一次重大胜利，这将制止大公司的‘商标霸凌’，不使用就不得囤积商标”。

笔者实难认同该声明的内容。就算撤销裁定出了，巨无霸仍然是全球最有名的餐品之一，而且，麦当劳显然正在使用Big Mac商标。

麦当劳这边则早早已确认将提起上诉。

本案将使麦当劳获得持续的媒体曝光率，尤其是，上诉会不会赢？以及，2019年美国橄榄球超级杯大赛的赢家们又吃得下几个“hamberders”？

盯着上诉进展吧。

附：英文版

How McDonald's lost its Big Mac trade mark？

How did Irish burger chain Supermac's manage to get the Big Mac trade mark cancelled across the EU? The answer lies in the lack of evidence presented by McDonald's as Daniel Bailey explains.

These past few weeks have seen McDonald's receive a lot of, perhaps unwanted, publicity.

On the other side of the pond, the Clemson Tiger college football team celebrated winning the national championships by making their way through 1000 'hamberders' in the White House, describing the meal as "the best meal we ever had" (this claim that has since been denied).

A little closer to home, McDonald's European Union trade mark registration for BIG MAC (No. 62638) was successfully revoked by an Irish burger chain, Supermac's.
 

The two fast-food chains have been locked in a trade mark disputes for a number of years over the use of the term 'mac'.

 
On face value, this is a surprising decision. The Big Mac is one of the most well-known menu items in the world, sold by the world's largest fast food chain. The Big Mac is so widely available globally, and the brand is so well known, that The Economist uses the cost of Big Macs worldwide to compare prices and exchange rates between different countries.

This does not stop McDonald's selling Big Macs, but if it is upheld it may help open the door for Supermac's to expand into the EU.

How is this possible?

Once a UK or EU trade mark has been registered for at least five years, it is possible for a third party to apply to revoke the trade mark if it has not been used in relation to the goods and services which it covers.

Supermac's applied to cancel McDonald’s EUTM registration for BIG MAC and McDonald's was required to submit evidence that it has used this brand, in the EU, between April 2012 and April 2017. Easy, or so it would seem.

The evidence and decision

In support of its registration, McDonald's submitted statements signed by representatives of McDonald's in the UK, France and Germany; brochures and printouts of advertising materials; printouts from their own websites; and a print out from Wikipedia.

 
The statements contained some sales figures showing that McDonald's sold over 1.4 billion Big Macs in the UK, France and Germany between 2011-2016.

 
The EUIPO felt the evidence was not sufficient to show that the trade mark had been put to genuine use. The type of evidence submitted, in particular the statements submitted by representatives of McDonald's, was of only limited value.

As such, EUIPO concluded that the evidence did not provide sufficient details concerning the extent of use and the materials "do not give any data for the real commercial presence of the EUTM for any of the relevant goods or services".

How to protect yourself

With Big Mac being so ubiquitous, it is surprising that the evidence submitted in this case was not more robust.

 
In particular, McDonald's would have been in a better position if it had provided objective data and images showing the products for sale in its restaurants.
 

This case is a stark reminder to brand owners, both big and small, of the importance of maintaining comprehensive records of brand use, so that they can provide specific and objective evidence.

 
Chartered Trade Mark Attorneys are best placed to advice on how to prove use of a trade mark.

What next？

Supermac's has since issued a statement "this is a great victory for business in general and stops bigger companies from 'trademark bullying' by not allowing them to hoard trade marks without using them".

 
This commenter struggles to agree with this statement. The Big Mac is one of the world's most famous menu items and, despite this decision; McDonald's is clearly using the Big Mac trade mark.

 
McDonald's has wasted no time confirming it will appeal this decision.

The above leaves the door open for more publicity for McDonald's, in particular, will the appeal be allowed and secondly, what how many 'hamberders' can the winners of the 2019 Super Bowl eat.

Keep an eye open for the appeal.

发布：IPRdaily中文网（iprdaily.cn）
作者：Daniel Bailey (Associate) 麦仕奇英国伦敦办公室
翻译：黄雪芳 (Partner) 麦仕奇北京办公室
供稿：麦仕奇知识产权
编辑：IPRdaily赵珍          校对：IPRdaily纵横君

“投稿”请投邮箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「关于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影响力的知识产权媒体+产业服务平台，致力于连接全球知识产权人，用户汇聚了中国、美国、德国、俄罗斯、以色列、澳大利亚、新加坡、日本、韩国等15个国家和地区的高科技公司、成长型科技企业IP高管、研发人员、法务、政府机构、律所、事务所、科研院校等全球近50多万产业用户（国内25万+海外30万）；同时拥有近百万条高质量的技术资源+专利资源，通过媒体构建全球知识产权资产信息第一入口。2016年获启赋资本领投和天使汇跟投的Pre-A轮融资。

（英文官网：iprdaily.com  中文官网：iprdaily.cn） 

本文来自IPRdaily.cn 中文网并经IPRdaily.cn中文网编辑。转载此文章须经权利人同意，并附上出处与作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立场，如若转载，请注明出处：“http://www.iprdaily.cn/”