http://disqus.com/by/richardbaron/enSun, 04 Oct 2009 00:58:30 -0000http://disinfo.com/2009/09/fast-food-giant-loses-in-mcdonalds-vs-mccurry-tiff/#comment-18451316<p>The recent McDonald's v. McCurry ruling is not surprising. Just by the three main DuPont factors alone, appearance, sound and meaning, these two marks are arguably not confusingly similar. Add to that the difference in menus, and the difference in trade dress, and you have a pretty strong case for McCurry, which the panel seemingly accepted. The letters "Mc" cannot be totally, exclusively owned by one entity worldwide. And it's not as if people are going to mix up McCurry with McDonalds. Now, if McCurry used the golden arches, had a clown and similar characters associated with the restaurant, that would be problematic. Those elements were not present in this case. On our site, <a href="http://www.trademarksprotected.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.trademarksprotected.com">http://www.trademarksprotec...</a>, we help with these trademark issues and any trademark questions.</p><p></p>richardbaronSun, 04 Oct 2009 00:58:30 -0000http://www.clickondetroit.com/money/20787740/detail.html#comment-17898642<p>The recent McDonald's v. McCurry ruling is not surprising. Just by the three main DuPont factors alone, appearance, sound and meaning, these two marks are arguably not confusingly similar. Add to that the difference in menus, and the difference in trade dress, and you have a pretty strong case for McCurry, which the panel seemingly accepted. The letters "Mc" cannot be totally, exclusively owned by one entity worldwide. And it's not as if people are going to mix up McCurry with McDonalds. Now, if McCurry used the golden arches, had a clown and similar characters associated with the restaurant, that would be problematic. Those elements were not present in this case. On our site, <a href="http://www.trademarksprotected.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.trademarksprotected.com">http://www.trademarksprotec...</a>, we help with these trademark issues and any trademark questions.</p><p></p>richardbaronWed, 30 Sep 2009 19:35:10 -0000http://blog.friendseat.com/mccurry-wins-mcwar-against-mcdonalds/#comment-17810198<p>The recent McDonald's v. McCurry ruling is not surprising. Just by the three main DuPont factors alone, appearance, sound and meaning, these two marks are arguably not confusingly similar. Add to that the difference in menus, and the difference in trade dress, and you have a pretty strong case for McCurry, which the panel seemingly accepted. The letters "Mc" cannot be totally, exclusively owned by one entity worldwide. And it's not as if people are going to mix up McCurry with McDonalds. Now, if McCurry used the golden arches, had a clown and similar characters associated with the restaurant, that would be problematic. Those elements were not present in this case. On our site, <a href="http://www.trademarksprotected.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.trademarksprotected.com">http://www.trademarksprotec...</a>, we help with these trademark issues and any trademark questions.</p><p></p>richardbaronTue, 29 Sep 2009 20:34:02 -0000http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/news/mcdonalds_loses_trademark_case_against_small_malaysian_restaurant_130588.asp#comment-17760033<p>The recent McDonald's v. McCurry ruling is not surprising. Just by the three main DuPont factors alone, appearance, sound and meaning, these two marks are arguably not confusingly similar. Add to that the difference in menus, and the difference in trade dress, and you have a pretty strong case for McCurry, which the panel seemingly accepted. The letters "Mc" cannot be totally, exclusively owned by one entity worldwide. And it's not as if people are going to mix up McCurry with McDonalds. Now, if McCurry used the golden arches, had a clown and similar characters associated with the restaurant, that would be problematic. Those elements were not present in this case. On our site, <a href="http://www.trademarksprotected.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.trademarksprotected.com">http://www.trademarksprotec...</a>, we help with these trademark issues and any trademark questions.</p><p></p>richardbaronTue, 29 Sep 2009 02:29:09 -0000http://www.8asians.com/2009/09/08/mcdonalds-loses-trademark-fight-against-malaysias-mccurry-restaurant/#comment-17567787<p>The recent McDonald's v. McCurry ruling is not surprising. Just by the three main DuPont factors alone, appearance, sound and meaning, these two marks are arguably not confusingly similar. Add to that the difference in menus, and the difference in trade dress, and you have a pretty strong case for McCurry, which the panel seemingly accepted. The letters "Mc" cannot be totally, exclusively owned by one entity worldwide. And it's not as if people are going to mix up McCurry with McDonalds. Now, if McCurry used the golden arches, had a clown and similar characters associated with the restaurant, that would be problematic. Those elements were not present in this case. On our site, <a href="http://www.trademarksprotected.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.trademarksprotected.com">http://www.trademarksprotec...</a>, we help with these trademark issues and any trademark questions.</p><p></p>richardbaronSun, 27 Sep 2009 02:34:25 -0000