Creator got his facts wrong. McDonald's never took this to court. Never sued this woman. They just sent her a letter. She hired a lawyer to send a letter back, and they settled. No court was ever involved.
The story of that grandma is mind-blowing. They fueled wild bullying towards her and valid cases like hers lost a lot of public credibility. And they haven't ammended that to this day. Unacceptable.
Oh just freaking stop already. it takes a special kind of foolishness to sue someone because you spill a hot beverage in your lap. And yes, I've seen the nonsense shows that covered the incident. They failed to remove the common sense clause: Don't spill hot things on your skin. End of story.
@@rooh5825 they kept the coffee 55 degrees hotter than mandated by the coffee manufacturer. Its negligent to habd anyone stuff so boiling hot its dangerous. Where was your law degree from again?
@@rooh5825 right and that would be the correct response, however the coffee was kept at a higher temperature than standard or what the regulations stated. i think they said they reason for this was bc of long lines and to reduce people complaining about cold coffee? i’m not sure about that part tho. so is that a good enough reason for you to ignore cautions? simply bc u don’t wanna have to deal with upset customers? so let’s give another customer 3rd degree burns and say it was her fault bc she’s old! silly old grandma things!!! she’s a karen!!! (before it became a trend to call old ppl karen/kevin) everyone knows to not spill hot things on your skin, but shit happens, and just so happens that THIS time shit happens they got caught doing things they shouldn’t be doing in the first place, and then covered it up. that’s corporate greed and ur letting them get away with it bc u like their fries 😂
Maurice and Richard McDonald were sons of Irish immigrants. They should have no trademark over basic Gaelic word forms. The utter arrogance of America's legal system to grant any basis for this annoys me. If they had established a well known event called McFest and put some effort into it, that would be different. Just to be able to park their legal tanks on that lawn, that is a bad system.
The same in Australia. The term Ugg boots was a generic term used for a type of sheep woollen boots, and many companies used the term Ugg boots and sold them overseas. Then an American company decided to trademark the name and named their company Ugg, then sued all the Australian companies calling their boots Ugg boots. The lawsuit failed in Australia because it was recognised for what it was, but the Australian companies couldn't export them overseas anymore.
@@khaleesireyna731 We've had a few centuries of corrupt wealthy people twisting the system in their favor. It takes great effort to claw that crap away.
@@yt.personal.identificationThose Mclawyers are already paid for. They gave more money ti the charity than fhey spent on legal fees(because it was settled it out of court). I'm not defending corporations. But don't be a dickwad to someone who has the same worldviews as you(the comment you replied to is anti-capitalist). They just said "at least nothing bad happened to the innocent people involved". That's not sugar coating, that's acknowledging how well this interaction went for the people involved.
Exactly. McDonald's could sue thousands of people with "Mc" in their names. If McDaniels opens a store called McDaniels, McDonald's can sue them. It's crazy
We need a government not owned by multi-billion $ corporations letting them "trademark" too much. Why isn't there a limit? That would be a start. Corporate power needs reined in across the board.
More recently (1990s) McDonald’s was being enough of a pain to other businesses/restaurants who just start their names with a “Mc” that eventually the ACTUAL CLAN LEADER of the MacDonald’s family (in Scotland) was stepping in about the issue… i saw an article in the Herald Scotland online archive about it when I was looking it up online.
They also lost in 2019 for suing a restaurant called supermacs in Ireland. Apparently they lost claim over any mcname except for Mcmuffin, mcnugget, and mcflurry
When they sue and lose , they should automatically be required to pay any damages the defendant requires, without trial. The defendant can be allowed to basically “name their price” and as long as the judge doesn’t find it extensive, they are required to pay whatever pie in the sky amount the defendant wants. Maybe people will LEARN to quit being children, grow up and quit wasting other time on BS.
First, McDonald's never sued this woman. They just sent her a letter. She hired a lawyer to send a letter back, and they settled. There was no lawsuit filed ever - the creator didn't do his work as per fucking usual. Second, the SA case went as it did because McPhail was actually the defendant’s surname. In this case McFest wasn’t anyone’s name, and this woman knew exactly what she was doing when she chose McFest.
@@alexanderoloughlinIt’s from the word “mac” which means “son” in both Irish and Scottish, and both “mc” and “mac” names were used equally in both countries
They need to start running these stupid lawsuits by their Marketing department. They could have turned it into a huge win for all if they officially recognized McFest's usage of the name and a decent donation every year to it in exchange for a little marketing at the events going forward.
Unfortunately, if they trademarked the name they have to pursue the lawsuit. If the name was just registered then they can pick and choose, if they let this go then they would lose the trademark (which if the comments above are correct they have lost anyway).
You either enforce your trademarks or you lose them entirely. Which is why many companies are stupidly litigious once they get big enough to have trademarks and enforce them. The company offering to pay for all the changes, and then donating was the best they could do, and had the girl understood trademark law she would have known it. Its actually a really good look for McDonalds at the end. Unlike other companies who simply sue a small business/charity into the dirt and walk away laughing.
Or we just need to start reporting these dollar store lawyers to their respective BAR. They know what they're doing and it's not allowed. You can't be frivolously vexatious and going after something like "Mc" which is pretty common throughout the world, especially in the UK, meets that standard. Bad lawyers need to get reported.
Huge corporation like McDonald's Sueing someone for doing a good Thing is disgraceful. No body going To get the two confused. If anything when McDonalds found out abour this they should have partnered and helped. Unbelievable McDonalds should be ashamed .
She didn't sue, they didn't even tell her to stop using the name. FFS, they merely filed an to McClusky’s attempt to secure a trademark for “McFest.” She could have continued using the name.
It makes sense like if they were to run some great sale or promotional event (like grimaces birthday or smth like that) mcfest would be a pretty good name for it so to reserve a trademark like that is smart
There needs to be a limit to how much corporations can trademark. They're not using "Mcfest" or "McFair" etc. They shouldn't be able to trademark thousands of names they are not using.
It’s well known in business/branding/advertising that McDonalds has a decades long policy of threatening legal action against ANYTHING and EVERYTHING with a name starting in “Mc-“. It doesn’t matter if you have a name/location/heritage connection that also starts with Mc-, their legal team will do everything to slap you down and give it up.
Everyone just needs to be aware that McDonalds alnost certainly didn't make that contribution out of the goodness of their hearts, but because it would affect their bottom line to receive the bad publicity from not doing it
No one does anything out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because they want to look good, they want to impress others, they are afraid of a God who will send them to hell if they don't or their brains are wired to get more pleasure from helping others than is normal.
No one cares if they are doing this because of the bad publicity or not İf the other Side still gets What they needed thats good This is same thing as tiktors giving food to homeless people No one cares of they are doing this for cloud , homeless people still getting something to eat and thats a good thing
There was a similar issue when a guy setup a Pizza shop named McPizza right next door to a McDonnalds. They attempted to sue the guy but the court ruled. You can't claim rights to a common prefix. They ended up buying the guy out and even started using the name themselves, but it didn't last.
McDolands tried to stop an Irish fast food chain Supermacs using that name and lost. Not only that Mcdolands lost the trademark for Big Mac (for the whole EU).
Mickey D tried to shut down anything named McDonalds in Scotland. In the middle of the court trial, the McDonald Clann Chieftan arrived in full Scottish regalia and informed them McDonalds was his name, his Scottish heritage and they would stop this stuff or leave Scotland. The Judge agreed and the gavel came down. All done.
@@liamfitzdrumssame thing happened to a Burger King in some random Midwestern County. The local burger King was older then the chain and had been there since their founding so when the chain tried to sue they lost and had to call themselves something else or leave the county
Oh yeah. That shit was funny. I’m related to the McDonald’s through a grandparent. McDonald’s runs a shitty restaurant chain and price gauges for shitty food.
Why wouldn't McDonalds just realize that the event itself is a great public relations boost for them, instead just partnership with her, allow her to keep the event (obviously with certain stipulations) and donate an amount to the charity? Would have gone over a lot better.
Mc Donald's also tried years ago to sue a family own sandwich shop in UK somewhere,because it was called McDonald's.Stupid part was that small shop was in business longer than the mcjunk food and it was the owners family name.
Yup. McDonald's pissed off the current head of the McDonald's clan in Scotland. The Lord threatened to sue as, if ANYONE had legal rights to McDonald, it was him. Another person who fought McDonald's was a guy named Ronald McDonald Jr.
same thing with Budweiser tried suing a Beer brand in Bavaria i believe that the brewery was called Budweiser and was in business much longer then the American brand
@@Yettiattack The Budweiser trademark dispute is an ongoing series of legal disputes between two beer companies (from the Czech Republic and the United States) who claim trademark and geographic origin rights to the name "Budweiser". The dispute has been ongoing since 1907, and has involved more than 100 court cases around the world. As a result, Budweiser Budvar has the rights to the name Budweiser in most of Europe and Anheuser-Busch InBev has this right in North America. Consequently, AB InBev uses the name "Bud" in most of Europe and Budvar sells its beer in North America under the name "Czechvar". In other territories, one or the other or even both may use the name, depending on local trademark law.
Just to protect their branding, considering how huge Mc is. It's kinda stupid they can trademark name that they have not use. But hey, atleast McDonald actually give significant contribution, probably because they know this is fucked up. This is best of both world. McDonald get to keep their trademark and branding, the charity gets even more attention and money, everybody wins.
This is why it's so important to do the proper research when filing for a trademark. There's people who get paid to make sure that a trademark is available. Having to abandon a trademark can have a significant negative impact on your business.
Creator got his facts wrong. McDonald's never sued this woman. They just sent her a letter. She hired a lawyer to send a letter back, and they settled. No court was ever involved.
they didn't sue for money buddy, the sued for her to change her charity name because they own the "mcfest" trademarks/rights. even offered to pay the cost of name change etc. if something negative went on with the mcfest charity.. potential victims could try and sue mcdonalds. it's just for their own protection.
@@naranja1972 The thing is that they shouldn't have, there were no McFest events or products in use, and the event had been going on for years at that point. What's more, there was no confusion between this event and anything that McDonalds was dong. If they didn't have so much money, they would have had their asses handed to them in court. And no, if something bad happened at the event, McDonalds would not be liable, they have no connection to the event and it's pretty clear by the complete and utter lack of any sign of the golden arches, you know the thing that is actually synonymous with McDonalds.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade To be fair, the prefix Mc- has become so familiar to the brand anyone who looks at the name McFest would probably guess/assume it’s related to McDonalds. They probably trademark so many Mc-x names to prevent people taking advantage of that familiarity. Obviously this case was just by chance and not by ill intent. I’m impressed McDonald’s offered to pay for the name change and other contributions.
Remember when they sued a lady who had horrific burns from their coffee and then dragged her name through the mud to say it was her own fault for being burned?
In Denmark, we had a similar case, where a larger beef restaurant chain sued a smaller fish restaurant. The large restaurant chain won the case, but a large part of the public subsequently boycotted them. There are not that many restaurants left in this chain and if you walk past one they are mostly empty.
@@seameology Yep, it's really easy to just pick something else to eat, so boycotting a shitty place to eat is actually pretty realistic unlike some huge umbrella company.
Mcdonalds have been told, by a judge, on no less than 3 occasions that they DO NOT OWN the prefix "Mc" and they KEEP doing this, because people just let them anyway. Stop letting them get away with bullying you.
McDonalds did not file a against McClusky. McDonalds didn’t even try and stop her from calling her concert series the “McFest,” they merely filed an to McClusky’s attempt to secure a trademark for “McFest.” I REPEAT: MsMcClusky did not get , her trademark was . McDonalds is not ordering her to change the name of her concert - they are just trying to stop a registration from creating a legal foothold inside their turf. (imagine suddenly she descides to sell her trademark to Burger King or a marijuana dispensary). The fact that she spent 5K on this is indicative of something greater is at stake - or just that Ms. McClusky is not making rational or informed decisions.
@noblesseoblige319 except there's a precedence for this already. As soon as this went before a judge she could have just said "hey judge they're doing this again, I submit into evidence the previous times they have done this and those judges rulling" and the courts would have laughed them out of town right then and there. No lawyer needed, just a quick Google search and a printer. McDonald's pay the court fees since they're the ones attempting to sue. Ez
Even mc donalds can't get away with going against a charity event for disabled peoples, the bad publicity would be too much money lost. They were not kind by paying her, they just made sure to get what they wanted without having to go to court
Ywp they definitely saw they're hovering between public outrage and keeping the trademarked name for themselves. Her events just happened to be popular enough over the years to prevent them from being absoulte assholes over their McDomainName monopoly.
At least they have a sensible team that can tell that there will be bad press, I don’t understand why other companies can’t see the obvious bad press they will receive from their actions? I mean hey not trying to say McDonalds isn’t any better for doing what they did but it was pretty obvious what would have happened.
They basically paid her off, then “ contributed” a “charity” sum to make themselves look better. McDonald’s feels like money solves everything and they don’t need to have morals. Money just wins everything for them, disgusting
No, there are plenty in other parts of the world that are worse than ours. But ours do seem to take that fact as a personal challenge. We need to ban protectionism.
Remember that time mcdonalds burned and almost killed an old woman with their coffee and then DRAGGED her name through the dirt to protect their image? . The McDonald's version goes; she was driving crazy around town with McDonald's coffee in one hand, when she swerved and spilled it on herself, receiving no real injury but sued and won billions. . The real story she was sitting in her SONS, PARKED car. And accidentally knocked over her coffee. She admitted it was her own fault that she knocked over the coffee. But the coffee she was served was LITERALLY AT BOILING POINT, causing serious burns (third degree), the shock of which almost caused her to die right there. She asked McDonald's to cover half of her hospital expenses (because American healthcare) when they refused she was forced to press charges for her medical bills. When the supreme Court did their own investigation into the matter they discovered this was happening CONSTANTLY, (I don't remember the exact figure but I think it was a near weekly occurrence). When the courts found that out they changed Stella's case, taking 2 days worth of coffee sales from them, which was a LOT of money. But Stella actually did not take the money. She didn't want to get rich, she just wanted her medical expenses covered.
By that logic, I could sue McDonald’s for using my family name fraudulently since the founder wasn’t part of my clan. Hell, a lot of people with Scottish and Irish last names starting with “Mc” could sue.
They gave lawyers more than they gave the charity. The payment was just cheap PR that gets this clown channel, and the puppets to act like McDonald's did a good thing.
@@yt.personal.identificationYou realize that most lawyers are kept on retainer right? They already pay for lawyers if they sue or not, so it's not like they spent extra money on legal fees. edit: i meant most CORPORATE lawyers
@@yt.personal.identification There's a difference between how the average person gets a lawyer and how the large corporation does. When your average person hires a lawyer, you are correct, you pay them by the hour. However, usually, when a big corporation hires a lawyer, they don't pay by the hour. They get paid a retainer, which is a set amount that they get paid every month, no matter if they get pulled into a case or not.
Creator got his facts wrong. McDonald's never never sued this woman. They just sent her a letter. She hired a lawyer to send a letter back, and they settled. No court was ever involved.
Another reason corporations are evil. They don’t own words. No trademark should apply outside the original business sector when the trademark is issued.
McDonald's tried a similar tactic in Ireland on a small chain of restaurants there and not only lost the case but lost at least one trademark, the "big mac". McDonald's competition all over Europe promptly jumped at this chance and rightfully bashed McDonald's. Hamburger joints were advertising things like what a Big Mac wishes it was and like a Big Mac only better.
They tried this in Australia when they tried to prevent the name of McBrats on the shorts of a rugby team. McDonald's discovered that McBratney lawyers ( the sponsors) specialise in intellectual property law, and correctly argued that one firm does not own the Mc prefix.
Proud of this young lady! She realized that the people she was helping were more important than the charity itself, she knew she would not win the her case but was strategic in putting McDonald's in a PR conundrum that ultimately made her charity bigger and more capable of helping more people. Genius in it's own way.
Lol. That's not what happened. She wanted a name that was already taken. And a charity that only was able to donate 30k wanted to waste money just to punish McDonald's? How do yall make up stories in your head?
Fun fact: in 2016 in Deerborn Wisconsin a festival grounds was established under the name mc fest. The address online is mcfests but the name of the venue is mcfest. Mcdonalds is just scum
Not the right choice McDonald's can't own a prefix that literally just means "son of" and if she had won McDonald's would have had to cover all the legal fees including hers
I don't see anything in the video that they specifically own 'McFest' - but it's very similar to McFeast, which is one of their trademarked combos. However, in their filing, they specifically claimed the use of 'Mc' as the infringement. It's similar to Apple claiming anything 'i-' as theirs, and Apple lost. McDonalds probably would've too, but they had [much] deeper pockets than the girl, so she didn't really try. After all, her focus was on running a charity event, not fighting corporate America.
@@sorantohell5096 I suppose you were okay with Taco Bell suing over "taco tuesday" (the family restaurant they sued used "taco twosday" to promote a two-fer pricing).
@@Romenamath There was no filing bro. Creator got his facts wrong, McDonald's never sued this woman. They just sent her a letter. She hired a lawyer to send a letter back, and they settled. No court filing bc no court was ever involved.
People always say it would be hard to fight a court when realistically the majority of juries are going to go against the large companies just because they are large companies
So that's why it's so common in Irish names. Like all the "-son" English names - it's literally the same thing. Never knew that I'm now thinking it's the same as all the "-ez" Spanish surnames too
I think it's been a longstanding thing across human history. The son ending came from the Scandinavian countries, presumably integrated into the Saxon tongue after the Danish occupation (though we never seemed to utilise the female version 'dottir'). I believe there was a post-Roman Bretonic word 'ap,' that simply translates as 'of' when discussing parentage. Which all says to me that trademarking is largely nonsensical and amounts to nothing more than petty squabbles from large corporations with too much money who have their heads wedged too far up their own ass! Look how long the argument between Budweis brewery and Anhauser-Busch went on over the Budweiser name. As if people couldn't tell the difference between the American sold rat piss and a half decent European lager in the first place! It just seems like unnecessary BS to me.
Honestly, I think the McDonalds legal team knew it would be bad for PR if they didn't donate after sueing. It still is bad for PR that they would sue a Charity to begin with.
They literally told her they would let her change the name, and they would pay for it. Its her that said no and brought them to work. How is this McDonald's fault?
@@Miner49r you have your opinion, I have mine. McDonald's didn't have to sue, they made a choice. They only made the offer to pay for the name change after they sued the charity making it a stipulation of dropping their claim. A multi-million dollar corporation bullying a small charity is never good for PR.
@AryonaSamoto you know if you dont enforce a copyright, you will most likely lose it, right? You really expect them to give out their copyrights as gifts to others?
Like, is it shitty yes but McDonald's did what they could without losing a copyright. Its sad, but at least they did something to help, unlike other companies. Call it good PR or not, its atleast a good thing rather than all the other scummy companies these days who would probably make her pay even if she couldn't afford court or even arrest her or close the charity down
@@Miner49r and we can't have a greedy company lose a copyright? They claimed everything that starts with Mc, regardless of their use of it or not, that's ridiculous and absolutely disgusting. You go ahead and keep defending them. Nothing you say will change my opinion. It's despicable corporate greed and nothing more.
One thing often forgotten is that McDonalds kinda had to do this. If you don’t defend a copyright, that can be used against you in future cases. This is probably the best outcome for all involved
Her brand should have indicated that it is NOT IN NO WAY CONNECTED TO McDonalds, and the purpose is clear. McDonalds can absorb her as Trademark promoter, as it did promoted her brand and McDonalds commonality when it comes to Charities. Good Work to her and Congratulations to both.
I'm 60 and I only went in one about a year ago to get something for a friend I haven't tasted anything from there in over 35 years and just standing in thier lobby I almost got sick I will never enter another one and I will never eat anything they sell
She was right to fight it on grounds of simple properness of the situation, but ultimately... if you are being offered money by a companies lawyers so they don't have to sue you... take the money.
To anyone who doesn’t realize, McDonald’s (or any other copyright/trademark holder) has to enforce their copyright/trademark, or it can be used against them later in court. This is probably why they approached it the way they did, as they had no obligation to help pay for the expenses. They probably didn’t want to go after her, but came to the conclusion that this was the best way to maintain the copyright while also supporting her cause.
Creator got his facts wrong. McDonald's never sued this woman. They just sent her a letter. She hired a lawyer to send a letter back, and they settled. No court was ever involved.
The thing people need to realize: if you have a trademark you are legally obligated to enforce it or lose the trademark. They had to sue, but they gave her a large donation because it would be in bad taste to do that to a charity.
the whole criticism against Mcdonalds is stupid. It wasn't her last name, is was inspired by her last name and she chose something that was already trademarked by mcdonalds. So, what is Mcdonalds supposed to do except exactly what they did? I'm shocked she even thought she could fight this.
@drunktrump5209 it's mostly the fact that businesses like that trademark anything and everything that is close to what they are most known for. Like McDonald's, they have damn near anything and everything that starts with Mc trademarked. You would basically be forced to use your exact name after the Mc in order to not get sued, and not everyone wants their business/org to be named the exact same as their name. Would be like if I had some giant business that specializes in cat products and I named it Cat house, then paid to trademark everything that starts with Cat. That would be stupidly annoying because noone would be able to make anything that starts with cat without using something super unique like their name since I have the trademarks to everything else.
Yes, but that doesn't really apply here. They could just as easily did that by either ensuring that she meets some sort of standard or that it's adequately clear that she hasn't got any connection to their company.
@thatinstrumentalsguy they didn't have a choice. In legal terms if you fail to sue for infringement when you notice it then you lose the right to sue in the future.
![[HANDCAM] My mum said I should stream this Minecraft magazine (that she bought without asking me)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BDKskzJ0yPU/mqdefault.jpg)
![[HANDCAM] My mum said I should stream this Minecraft magazine (that she bought without asking me)](/img/tr.png)
They sue a person over their legal name but cant fix the damn ice cream machine
No, McDonald's did not sue this teenager. @andyyjiang's video is a hoax.
Damn you're right about that
At this point if you want ice cream go to dairy Queen or buy it at the store. My restaurants permanently removed them
@@MultiTurbospeed Why go to Dairy Queen when you can get a whole freaking tub for the same price as their small?
We always ask "is the ice cream machine working?" before we even try to order a McFlurry. 😂
“Old McDonald had a farm-“
McDonald’s: let’s take this to court
Old McDonald himself: *Racks 1897* “You city-folk never learn.”
Creator got his facts wrong. McDonald's never took this to court. Never sued this woman. They just sent her a letter. She hired a lawyer to send a letter back, and they settled. No court was ever involved.
🤣🐑🐥
He won't have a problem. He spells his farm e-i-e-i-o.
Explains why he “had” a farm
From trying to ruin the reputation of a Grandmas with 3rd degree burns to suing teenagers hosting charity events, mcdonalds legal team is wild.
The story of that grandma is mind-blowing. They fueled wild bullying towards her and valid cases like hers lost a lot of public credibility. And they haven't ammended that to this day. Unacceptable.
Oh just freaking stop already. it takes a special kind of foolishness to sue someone because you spill a hot beverage in your lap. And yes, I've seen the nonsense shows that covered the incident. They failed to remove the common sense clause: Don't spill hot things on your skin. End of story.
@@rooh5825 they kept the coffee 55 degrees hotter than mandated by the coffee manufacturer. Its negligent to habd anyone stuff so boiling hot its dangerous. Where was your law degree from again?
@@rooh5825Stupid is your base form
@@rooh5825 right and that would be the correct response, however the coffee was kept at a higher temperature than standard or what the regulations stated. i think they said they reason for this was bc of long lines and to reduce people complaining about cold coffee? i’m not sure about that part tho. so is that a good enough reason for you to ignore cautions? simply bc u don’t wanna have to deal with upset customers? so let’s give another customer 3rd degree burns and say it was her fault bc she’s old! silly old grandma things!!! she’s a karen!!! (before it became a trend to call old ppl karen/kevin) everyone knows to not spill hot things on your skin, but shit happens, and just so happens that THIS time shit happens they got caught doing things they shouldn’t be doing in the first place, and then covered it up. that’s corporate greed and ur letting them get away with it bc u like their fries 😂
Maurice and Richard McDonald were sons of Irish immigrants. They should have no trademark over basic Gaelic word forms.
The utter arrogance of America's legal system to grant any basis for this annoys me. If they had established a well known event called McFest and put some effort into it, that would be different. Just to be able to park their legal tanks on that lawn, that is a bad system.
Welcome to America. We love to go on about how free we are, but really, the corporations actually run things.
The same in Australia. The term Ugg boots was a generic term used for a type of sheep woollen boots, and many companies used the term Ugg boots and sold them overseas. Then an American company decided to trademark the name and named their company Ugg, then sued all the Australian companies calling their boots Ugg boots. The lawsuit failed in Australia because it was recognised for what it was, but the Australian companies couldn't export them overseas anymore.
McDolands lost the trademark for big mac, after going after supermacs (Irish burger chain) because mac was in it’s name
@@khaleesireyna731 We've had a few centuries of corrupt wealthy people twisting the system in their favor. It takes great effort to claw that crap away.
Maurice Richard was a good hockey player
At least McDonalds paid for the damages they had caused, unlike most other huge corporations.
A lot better than Microsoft who made clowns of themselves
No, they gave a token amount and spent more on lawyers to fight a CHARITY.
Stop sugar coating corporate bullies actions.
Cope@@yt.personal.identification
imagine the backlash if not
@@yt.personal.identificationThose Mclawyers are already paid for. They gave more money ti the charity than fhey spent on legal fees(because it was settled it out of court).
I'm not defending corporations. But don't be a dickwad to someone who has the same worldviews as you(the comment you replied to is anti-capitalist).
They just said "at least nothing bad happened to the innocent people involved". That's not sugar coating, that's acknowledging how well this interaction went for the people involved.
Next they’re just gonna sue anyone with the last name McDonald 💀
Exactly. McDonald's could sue thousands of people with "Mc" in their names. If McDaniels opens a store called McDaniels, McDonald's can sue them. It's crazy
We need a government not owned by multi-billion $ corporations letting them "trademark" too much. Why isn't there a limit? That would be a start. Corporate power needs reined in across the board.
@@tw8464No kidding. I'd understand McDonalds name in fast food, but nothing beyond that should be allowed
@@tw8464the trademark happens all because of that "Mc" so changing only the thing AFTER the Mc doesn't make sense when you are giving examples
Especialy that old man who had a farm, E-I-E-I-O.
More recently (1990s) McDonald’s was being enough of a pain to other businesses/restaurants who just start their names with a “Mc” that eventually the ACTUAL CLAN LEADER of the MacDonald’s family (in Scotland) was stepping in about the issue… i saw an article in the Herald Scotland online archive about it when I was looking it up online.
With all due respect, that’s not what more recently means.
Damn grandpa , fr
@@phabiorules Had me going back to check the dates 😂
Not too sure what a MacDonald is going to do from Scotland when McDonalds is an irish name...
@@phabiorules most recently for USA since you all don't have a thousand years of history 😂😂
As a Scottish person. McDonald's are being Aholes. I am ashamed that McDonald's are dishounering a good Scottish name.
Irish used it first
In South Africa, McDonald sued the company called McPhail, a coal supplier who has been in business for over 50. McDonald's lost.
They also lost in 2019 for suing a restaurant called supermacs in Ireland. Apparently they lost claim over any mcname except for Mcmuffin, mcnugget, and mcflurry
@@MisterMick113 They lost McGriddle??
McPhail give them a McFail
When they sue and lose , they should automatically be required to pay any damages the defendant requires, without trial. The defendant can be allowed to basically “name their price” and as long as the judge doesn’t find it extensive, they are required to pay whatever pie in the sky amount the defendant wants. Maybe people will LEARN to quit being children, grow up and quit wasting other time on BS.
First, McDonald's never sued this woman. They just sent her a letter. She hired a lawyer to send a letter back, and they settled. There was no lawsuit filed ever - the creator didn't do his work as per fucking usual.
Second, the SA case went as it did because McPhail was actually the defendant’s surname. In this case McFest wasn’t anyone’s name, and this woman knew exactly what she was doing when she chose McFest.
McDonalds must be so mad that Scotland exist.
Mc comes from ireland
@@alexanderoloughlinIt’s from the word “mac” which means “son” in both Irish and Scottish, and both “mc” and “mac” names were used equally in both countries
It doesn't. Scotland doesn't exist though
@@sleeponacouch7003This is a joke right?
@@OutOfIdeas9977what joke?
They need to start running these stupid lawsuits by their Marketing department. They could have turned it into a huge win for all if they officially recognized McFest's usage of the name and a decent donation every year to it in exchange for a little marketing at the events going forward.
Unfortunately, if they trademarked the name they have to pursue the lawsuit. If the name was just registered then they can pick and choose, if they let this go then they would lose the trademark (which if the comments above are correct they have lost anyway).
Yeah they really could have gained a lot of goodwill from that.
You either enforce your trademarks or you lose them entirely. Which is why many companies are stupidly litigious once they get big enough to have trademarks and enforce them.
The company offering to pay for all the changes, and then donating was the best they could do, and had the girl understood trademark law she would have known it.
Its actually a really good look for McDonalds at the end.
Unlike other companies who simply sue a small business/charity into the dirt and walk away laughing.
Or we just need to start reporting these dollar store lawyers to their respective BAR. They know what they're doing and it's not allowed. You can't be frivolously vexatious and going after something like "Mc" which is pretty common throughout the world, especially in the UK, meets that standard.
Bad lawyers need to get reported.
Huge corporation like McDonald's
Sueing someone for doing a good
Thing is disgraceful. No body going
To get the two confused. If anything when McDonalds found out abour this they should have partnered and helped. Unbelievable McDonalds should be ashamed .
She didn't sue, they didn't even tell her to stop using the name. FFS, they merely filed an to McClusky’s attempt to secure a trademark for “McFest.” She could have continued using the name.
Do you know how McDonald’s started ?? It’s wild
@@AdrianaSanchez-lt8ig yes it's was bought from 2 brothers by
Kroc. Kroc sold milkshake machines
And wanted to put them in the
McDonald's stores
Her organization made out waaay better as a result.
McDonald's about to sue Old MacDonald's farm for their name 💀
Actually🤓, they own words with the prefix MC, not Mac
(Do not take this too seriously)
Don’t forget McGyver
@@adcas1238NOOOOO 😮 not McGyver. He's a DIYer Demigod
I remember when Sue was just a girl's name 😂
"Old McDonald HAD a farm"
It's ridiculous to trademark something you're not even using. How can you argue you're protecting something you've worked for?
It makes sense like if they were to run some great sale or promotional event (like grimaces birthday or smth like that) mcfest would be a pretty good name for it so to reserve a trademark like that is smart
Only keep your trademark if you fight for it
It will always come in useful. Also if people try to impersonate Mcdonalds with a variation of Mc_____ they can easily sue
Exactly
There needs to be a limit to how much corporations can trademark. They're not using "Mcfest" or "McFair" etc. They shouldn't be able to trademark thousands of names they are not using.
We need something similar to anti SLAPP lawsuits to deal with this sort of lawsuit trolling from big companies.
It’s well known in business/branding/advertising that McDonalds has a decades long policy of threatening legal action against ANYTHING and EVERYTHING with a name starting in “Mc-“. It doesn’t matter if you have a name/location/heritage connection that also starts with Mc-, their legal team will do everything to slap you down and give it up.
McDonalds needs to chill. They’ve NEVER had a McFest.
no
It doesn't have to be an event for them to own the copyright?
A McFuckfest.
@@TheNixon333 read it again where the fuck does he say anything about it not being allowed to be an event
If it’s someone’s last name, they shouldn’t have been able to claim it in the first place.
Everyone just needs to be aware that McDonalds alnost certainly didn't make that contribution out of the goodness of their hearts, but because it would affect their bottom line to receive the bad publicity from not doing it
No one does anything out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because they want to look good, they want to impress others, they are afraid of a God who will send them to hell if they don't or their brains are wired to get more pleasure from helping others than is normal.
This isn't true, but corporations that view situations like this professionally will never do something out of the kindness of their heart
No one cares if they are doing this because of the bad publicity or not
İf the other Side still gets What they needed thats good
This is same thing as tiktors giving food to homeless people
No one cares of they are doing this for cloud , homeless people still getting something to eat and thats a good thing
@@domvastaYou're awfully cynical.
Blah blah blab blab.
There was a similar issue when a guy setup a Pizza shop named McPizza right next door to a McDonnalds. They attempted to sue the guy but the court ruled. You can't claim rights to a common prefix. They ended up buying the guy out and even started using the name themselves, but it didn't last.
Tell that to @krugerstan
They think she was a "loser" for wanting to fight and then realizing she didn't have enough money.
McDolands tried to stop an Irish fast food chain Supermacs using that name and lost. Not only that Mcdolands lost the trademark for Big Mac (for the whole EU).
Mickey D tried to shut down anything named McDonalds in Scotland. In the middle of the court trial, the McDonald Clann Chieftan arrived in full Scottish regalia and informed them McDonalds was his name, his Scottish heritage and they would stop this stuff or leave Scotland. The Judge agreed and the gavel came down. All done.
They tried to sue a chain of restaurants in Ireland called Supermacs because it was, in their words, too similar to the Big Mac name. Supermacs won.
@@liamfitzdrumssame thing happened to a Burger King in some random Midwestern County. The local burger King was older then the chain and had been there since their founding so when the chain tried to sue they lost and had to call themselves something else or leave the county
@@arthas640 Didn't know Australia was a Midwestern County.
Oh yeah. That shit was funny. I’m related to the McDonald’s through a grandparent. McDonald’s runs a shitty restaurant chain and price gauges for shitty food.
@liamfitzdrums Also, as a result, Burger King then started trolling them at all their restaurant locations by using Big Mac on their menu broads.
These big companies need to stop suing random things 💀
Now there gonna sue people for breathing the same air as them 😭
They have billions no reason to sue they are too greedy
They literally already had the trademark. And if they don't sue, anyone could then use it, freely.
They had the trademark AND they donated to her cause. I'm all for bashing on corporate greed, but this was 100% in McDonald's favor.
Corporate greed
Why wouldn't McDonalds just realize that the event itself is a great public relations boost for them, instead just partnership with her, allow her to keep the event (obviously with certain stipulations) and donate an amount to the charity? Would have gone over a lot better.
first time in a lawsuit where both sides win
Win? She didn't win. She just accepted her defeat and moved on.
Mc Donald's also tried years ago to sue a family own sandwich shop in UK somewhere,because it was called McDonald's.Stupid part was that small shop was in business longer than the mcjunk food and it was the owners family name.
Tell them to get fucked lol
Yup. McDonald's pissed off the current head of the McDonald's clan in Scotland. The Lord threatened to sue as, if ANYONE had legal rights to McDonald, it was him. Another person who fought McDonald's was a guy named Ronald McDonald Jr.
same thing with Budweiser tried suing a Beer brand in Bavaria i believe that the brewery was called Budweiser and was in business much longer then the American brand
@@krazzygranny7032 good luck suing out of country 😂
@@Yettiattack The Budweiser trademark dispute is an ongoing series of legal disputes between two beer companies (from the Czech Republic and the United States) who claim trademark and geographic origin rights to the name "Budweiser". The dispute has been ongoing since 1907, and has involved more than 100 court cases around the world. As a result, Budweiser Budvar has the rights to the name Budweiser in most of Europe and Anheuser-Busch InBev has this right in North America. Consequently, AB InBev uses the name "Bud" in most of Europe and Budvar sells its beer in North America under the name "Czechvar". In other territories, one or the other or even both may use the name, depending on local trademark law.
Suing somebody's charity because they named it after themselves, that's very noble of you.
Just to protect their branding, considering how huge Mc is. It's kinda stupid they can trademark name that they have not use.
But hey, atleast McDonald actually give significant contribution, probably because they know this is fucked up.
This is best of both world. McDonald get to keep their trademark and branding, the charity gets even more attention and money, everybody wins.
@@hamizannarutoThey gave money to protect their image. If megacorporations had benevolent souls, they wouldn't exist.
@@purrosie4742 Yeah, I know. I said the same thing as you. The gave money because they know this is fucked up and would be a PR nightmare.
@@hamizannaruto Oh, I misinterpreted your comment then. Sorry!
@@hamizannaruto if you think that's crazy, wait until you find out that your organs are patented as well. :)
This is actually a good story, both parties left happy and mcdonalds probably donated more money than she had raised in total.
This is why it's so important to do the proper research when filing for a trademark. There's people who get paid to make sure that a trademark is available. Having to abandon a trademark can have a significant negative impact on your business.
Imagine being so greedy, you sue a charity...
Creator got his facts wrong. McDonald's never sued this woman. They just sent her a letter. She hired a lawyer to send a letter back, and they settled. No court was ever involved.
they didn't sue for money buddy, the sued for her to change her charity name because they own the "mcfest" trademarks/rights. even offered to pay the cost of name change etc.
if something negative went on with the mcfest charity.. potential victims could try and sue mcdonalds. it's just for their own protection.
@@naranja1972 The thing is that they shouldn't have, there were no McFest events or products in use, and the event had been going on for years at that point. What's more, there was no confusion between this event and anything that McDonalds was dong.
If they didn't have so much money, they would have had their asses handed to them in court.
And no, if something bad happened at the event, McDonalds would not be liable, they have no connection to the event and it's pretty clear by the complete and utter lack of any sign of the golden arches, you know the thing that is actually synonymous with McDonalds.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade To be fair, the prefix Mc- has become so familiar to the brand anyone who looks at the name McFest would probably guess/assume it’s related to McDonalds.
They probably trademark so many Mc-x names to prevent people taking advantage of that familiarity. Obviously this case was just by chance and not by ill intent. I’m impressed McDonald’s offered to pay for the name change and other contributions.
Our laws say if you dont sue then you lose the trademark.
Maybe McDonalds should try using that energy on keeping their icecream machines working.
😂
They do work but they know they don't want to spend money cleaning them.
$crew McDonald'$.
Impossible
lol i find it rlly funny when ppl talk abt the ice cream machines bc where i live they almost always work lol
@@ur.favourite.gremlin same here, can't relate
Trademarking words should be illegal.
Remember when they sued a lady who had horrific burns from their coffee and then dragged her name through the mud to say it was her own fault for being burned?
She sued them.
In Denmark, we had a similar case, where a larger beef restaurant chain sued a smaller fish restaurant. The large restaurant chain won the case, but a large part of the public subsequently boycotted them. There are not that many restaurants left in this chain and if you walk past one they are mostly empty.
We vote with our wallets and feet!
@@seameology Yep, it's really easy to just pick something else to eat, so boycotting a shitty place to eat is actually pretty realistic unlike some huge umbrella company.
No, McDonald's did not sue this teenager. @andyyjiang's video is a hoax.
HOW DO AN BEEF RESTAURANT COULD SUE AN FISH RESTAURANT ?!
It would be poetic justice if the fish restaurant ended up purchasing the beef restaurant a few years later.
What the actual fuck is with these companies 😭
Power trip
They are gready
I really don't see what the big deal is. A company asked her to change her name and she did. There's literally no drama here lol
Greed.
I apparently need glasses. I definitely saw "McFuck" the first time I read your comment...🤦🏽♀️🤷🏽♀️😅
"Get the McLawyers."
They literally have no choice. If they can't show they're actively "defending" their trademark they lose it. Thank the US legal system.
It's not perfect but it's still objectively the single most fair and just legal system to ever exist
Mcdonalds have been told, by a judge, on no less than 3 occasions that they DO NOT OWN the prefix "Mc" and they KEEP doing this, because people just let them anyway. Stop letting them get away with bullying you.
It's a money thing... pay to play... our legal system is for the rich and leftists....
She tried. Just didn't have the funds.
It's less bullying, and more "if they pick a fight with you, you already lost".
McDonalds did not file a against McClusky. McDonalds didn’t even try and stop her from calling her concert series the “McFest,” they merely filed an to McClusky’s attempt to secure a trademark for “McFest.” I REPEAT: MsMcClusky did not get , her trademark was . McDonalds is not ordering her to change the name of her concert - they are just trying to stop a registration from creating a legal foothold inside their turf. (imagine suddenly she descides to sell her trademark to Burger King or a marijuana dispensary). The fact that she spent 5K on this is indicative of something greater is at stake - or just that Ms. McClusky is not making rational or informed decisions.
@@jennymaria86did you voice to text this paragraph
@noblesseoblige319 except there's a precedence for this already. As soon as this went before a judge she could have just said "hey judge they're doing this again, I submit into evidence the previous times they have done this and those judges rulling" and the courts would have laughed them out of town right then and there. No lawyer needed, just a quick Google search and a printer. McDonald's pay the court fees since they're the ones attempting to sue. Ez
5 grand? Oh, you sweet, summer child 😭☠️
Ireland, we need to file a suit against a corporation on your behalf.
Even mc donalds can't get away with going against a charity event for disabled peoples, the bad publicity would be too much money lost.
They were not kind by paying her, they just made sure to get what they wanted without having to go to court
Ywp they definitely saw they're hovering between public outrage and keeping the trademarked name for themselves. Her events just happened to be popular enough over the years to prevent them from being absoulte assholes over their McDomainName monopoly.
At least they have a sensible team that can tell that there will be bad press, I don’t understand why other companies can’t see the obvious bad press they will receive from their actions? I mean hey not trying to say McDonalds isn’t any better for doing what they did but it was pretty obvious what would have happened.
They basically paid her off, then “ contributed” a “charity” sum to make themselves look better. McDonald’s feels like money solves everything and they don’t need to have morals. Money just wins everything for them, disgusting
Among all the big corporations that could've gotten away with it , you assume mcdonalds would've?
Bro it’s literally their copyright, plus it’s only a name, It is not that deep 😂😂😂
“She soon received a McCease and desist”
💀
No way this is too good 🤣🤣🤣
Underrated
Only good comment yet.
She wise up and realized what was her goal. She really meant with what she does
Thanks for bringing awareness to just how fluffing stupid these CEO’s are. 😂😂😂❤❤❤
If that's what you got out of it, you might just be fucking stupid
Man, corporations in America are the WORST.
No, there are plenty in other parts of the world that are worse than ours. But ours do seem to take that fact as a personal challenge. We need to ban protectionism.
@@AtarahDerek. How about we sue McDonalds for using the English language as it's not theirs in the first place? (Bloody Yanks!!!)
Corporations EVERYWHERE are the worst. Has nothing to do with being American or not.
No, McDonald's did not sue this teenager. @andyyjiang's video is a hoax.
Remember that time mcdonalds burned and almost killed an old woman with their coffee and then DRAGGED her name through the dirt to protect their image?
.
The McDonald's version goes; she was driving crazy around town with McDonald's coffee in one hand, when she swerved and spilled it on herself, receiving no real injury but sued and won billions.
.
The real story she was sitting in her SONS, PARKED car. And accidentally knocked over her coffee. She admitted it was her own fault that she knocked over the coffee. But the coffee she was served was LITERALLY AT BOILING POINT, causing serious burns (third degree), the shock of which almost caused her to die right there. She asked McDonald's to cover half of her hospital expenses (because American healthcare) when they refused she was forced to press charges for her medical bills. When the supreme Court did their own investigation into the matter they discovered this was happening CONSTANTLY, (I don't remember the exact figure but I think it was a near weekly occurrence). When the courts found that out they changed Stella's case, taking 2 days worth of coffee sales from them, which was a LOT of money. But Stella actually did not take the money. She didn't want to get rich, she just wanted her medical expenses covered.
By that logic, I could sue McDonald’s for using my family name fraudulently since the founder wasn’t part of my clan. Hell, a lot of people with Scottish and Irish last names starting with “Mc” could sue.
The Donald clan gonna have a braw old time after that lawsuit
Did your family pay to file and maintain a copy write or trademark ?
No?...
Well then it's not the same situation.
@@spaceracer23 McDonald’s doesn’t have the copyright for any “Mc-“ either, so thank you for proving my point.
I hope the McGriddles family is able to get paid for the use of their name.
@@spaceracer23 whatever smartass
...Another reason to boycott McGarbage.
Listen, McDonald’s, you don’t own “Mc”
Honestly, I'm suprised they even gave her anything.
They gave lawyers more than they gave the charity.
The payment was just cheap PR that gets this clown channel, and the puppets to act like McDonald's did a good thing.
@@yt.personal.identificationlmfao real like it was the LEAST McDonald's could have done, and even at that.
@@yt.personal.identificationYou realize that most lawyers are kept on retainer right? They already pay for lawyers if they sue or not, so it's not like they spent extra money on legal fees.
edit: i meant most CORPORATE lawyers
@@theaviationbee You do know the difference between retainer and hourly rate... right?
You seem to be confused about how lawyers get paid.
@@yt.personal.identification There's a difference between how the average person gets a lawyer and how the large corporation does. When your average person hires a lawyer, you are correct, you pay them by the hour. However, usually, when a big corporation hires a lawyer, they don't pay by the hour. They get paid a retainer, which is a set amount that they get paid every month, no matter if they get pulled into a case or not.
Imagine suing a charity event 💀
Creator got his facts wrong. McDonald's never never sued this woman. They just sent her a letter. She hired a lawyer to send a letter back, and they settled. No court was ever involved.
Suing teenagers, never thought McDonald’s can go so low
She really thought she was going to be McD in court with only 5 bands.
Old McDonald has been real quiet since this drop 😂
Next they are going to sue rappers for being “MC”s.
You were so confident in your jokes you just had to make three comments didn't you
There was a rapper called WC. Close call.
@@kaycee7738Shut up.
A lot of brazilain funk singer names starts with MC
sue those people@@heitorkawano5124
Another reason corporations are evil. They don’t own words. No trademark should apply outside the original business sector when the trademark is issued.
There’s nothing more pathetic than a multi-billion dollar corporation throwing a fit and suing someone who obviously wouldn’t be able to fight back
McDonald's tried a similar tactic in Ireland on a small chain of restaurants there and not only lost the case but lost at least one trademark, the "big mac". McDonald's competition all over Europe promptly jumped at this chance and rightfully bashed McDonald's. Hamburger joints were advertising things like what a Big Mac wishes it was and like a Big Mac only better.
Breaking News: Old Mcdonald no longer has a farm.
Just the McPoor farm.
Its NEVER the "right choice" to cave to corporate bullies.
They tried this in Australia when they tried to prevent the name of McBrats on the shorts of a rugby team. McDonald's discovered that McBratney lawyers ( the sponsors) specialise in intellectual property law, and correctly argued that one firm does not own the Mc prefix.
Proud of this young lady! She realized that the people she was helping were more important than the charity itself, she knew she would not win the her case but was strategic in putting McDonald's in a PR conundrum that ultimately made her charity bigger and more capable of helping more people.
Genius in it's own way.
Well played Lion....well played
Lol. That's not what happened. She wanted a name that was already taken. And a charity that only was able to donate 30k wanted to waste money just to punish McDonald's? How do yall make up stories in your head?
@@user-wx1br9jp6u not a story. It is opinion. Further more, show me your facts?
Fun fact: in 2016 in Deerborn Wisconsin a festival grounds was established under the name mc fest. The address online is mcfests but the name of the venue is mcfest. Mcdonalds is just scum
thats still sad she should be able to keep her name. now they have a weird name that doesn't make sense.
Not the right choice McDonald's can't own a prefix that literally just means "son of" and if she had won McDonald's would have had to cover all the legal fees including hers
Did you watch the video? They dont own the word Mc they own the word Mcfest specifically.
I don't see anything in the video that they specifically own 'McFest' - but it's very similar to McFeast, which is one of their trademarked combos. However, in their filing, they specifically claimed the use of 'Mc' as the infringement. It's similar to Apple claiming anything 'i-' as theirs, and Apple lost. McDonalds probably would've too, but they had [much] deeper pockets than the girl, so she didn't really try. After all, her focus was on running a charity event, not fighting corporate America.
Yeah, they McFukked up.
A big McStake.
They're a bunch of greedy McJerks.
@@sorantohell5096 I suppose you were okay with Taco Bell suing over "taco tuesday" (the family restaurant they sued used "taco twosday" to promote a two-fer pricing).
@@Romenamath There was no filing bro. Creator got his facts wrong, McDonald's never sued this woman. They just sent her a letter. She hired a lawyer to send a letter back, and they settled. No court filing bc no court was ever involved.
People always say it would be hard to fight a court when realistically the majority of juries are going to go against the large companies just because they are large companies
Theyre sending a message to their franchise holders about how much they value the name
the entierty of scotland should sue the crap out of McDonalds!
it’s crazy that mcdonald’s owns “mc” in america, it lich means “son of” in irish surnames
And Scots ones.
So that's why it's so common in Irish names. Like all the "-son" English names - it's literally the same thing. Never knew that
I'm now thinking it's the same as all the "-ez" Spanish surnames too
I think it's been a longstanding thing across human history. The son ending came from the Scandinavian countries, presumably integrated into the Saxon tongue after the Danish occupation (though we never seemed to utilise the female version 'dottir'). I believe there was a post-Roman Bretonic word 'ap,' that simply translates as 'of' when discussing parentage.
Which all says to me that trademarking is largely nonsensical and amounts to nothing more than petty squabbles from large corporations with too much money who have their heads wedged too far up their own ass! Look how long the argument between Budweis brewery and Anhauser-Busch went on over the Budweiser name. As if people couldn't tell the difference between the American sold rat piss and a half decent European lager in the first place! It just seems like unnecessary BS to me.
@@austinseven4720 irish aren’t saxons so but ye the rest is right
@@HenryLanepilkington I know. I was referring to the English use of 'son' you mentioned. And how, as with much of the language, it isn't native! 😂
Such a big company suing basically a teen doing stuff to help other is beyond disgusting, i think it should be time for McDonald's to shut down.
"A"
"You cant say that we own that letter"
Norm Macdonald would be upset.
True story: in the early 1980s there was a state excise cop named Ronald MacDonald. I wonder if he ever got sued by them
Norm will get over it 😂
Honestly, I think the McDonalds legal team knew it would be bad for PR if they didn't donate after sueing. It still is bad for PR that they would sue a Charity to begin with.
They literally told her they would let her change the name, and they would pay for it. Its her that said no and brought them to work. How is this McDonald's fault?
@@Miner49r you have your opinion, I have mine. McDonald's didn't have to sue, they made a choice. They only made the offer to pay for the name change after they sued the charity making it a stipulation of dropping their claim. A multi-million dollar corporation bullying a small charity is never good for PR.
@AryonaSamoto you know if you dont enforce a copyright, you will most likely lose it, right? You really expect them to give out their copyrights as gifts to others?
Like, is it shitty yes but McDonald's did what they could without losing a copyright. Its sad, but at least they did something to help, unlike other companies. Call it good PR or not, its atleast a good thing rather than all the other scummy companies these days who would probably make her pay even if she couldn't afford court or even arrest her or close the charity down
@@Miner49r and we can't have a greedy company lose a copyright? They claimed everything that starts with Mc, regardless of their use of it or not, that's ridiculous and absolutely disgusting. You go ahead and keep defending them. Nothing you say will change my opinion. It's despicable corporate greed and nothing more.
There's a lot of these with McDonald's, screw MacDonalds
Sounds like Disney trying to sue small owned daycares for painting Winnie the Pooh characters on their walls
McDonald's being Mcpetty over a name/title that I didn't even know existed for them in the first place.
Minecraft now has to be renamed after McDonald’s realized it’s acronym was MC
ItzRealBoy and MlneYoBeezWack would agree 😿
That’s not what an acronym is. Minecraft is one word
LMAO HOW DUMB CAN YOU BE? YOU’RE NOT ASIAN, STOP ACTING LIKE YO AHH CANT SEE DXXXXX; MINE, CRAFT.@@redgreen3187
minecraft is it full name but mc is an acronym@@redgreen3187
@@redgreen3187 MC is an acronym for Minecraft.
Its funny how much money mcdonalds has to spent even for this little issue but their Ice cream machine always broke which only cost a penny to fix 😂
Never make a McMistake when Ronald is standing guard .
One thing often forgotten is that McDonalds kinda had to do this. If you don’t defend a copyright, that can be used against you in future cases.
This is probably the best outcome for all involved
I appreciate this seeing kind people caring about the disabled 🌹
Her brand should have indicated that it is NOT IN NO WAY CONNECTED TO McDonalds, and the purpose is clear. McDonalds can absorb her as Trademark promoter, as it did promoted her brand and McDonalds commonality when it comes to Charities. Good Work to her and Congratulations to both.
Shame on McDonald's for sending a cease and desist.
Person last-named McDonald:
McDonalds: 😡👮🏼♂️💰
I feel like Ireland needs to have a word with McDonald's. Unless its directly related to their business, its crazy that they have a monopoly on Mc
We did! And they don’t have the copyright to the Mc prefix in the EU
@@ismisedia3198 Well good on ya!!! Maybe we get that kicken for the rest of the world too?? 😁
McDonalds sued Supermacs (Irish burger restaurant) and lost, they also lost trademark for Big Mac in the whole of the EU.
If only McDonald's could sue the new minimum wage into submission so easily!
Mcdonalds really out here taking people to court over their legal names
Just boycott MuckDonalds.
I'm 60 and I only went in one about a year ago to get something for a friend I haven't tasted anything from there in over 35 years and just standing in thier lobby I almost got sick I will never enter another one and I will never eat anything they sell
I've been doing that for about 20 years now. Their food is horrible and poisonous
She was right to fight it on grounds of simple properness of the situation, but ultimately... if you are being offered money by a companies lawyers so they don't have to sue you... take the money.
To anyone who doesn’t realize, McDonald’s (or any other copyright/trademark holder) has to enforce their copyright/trademark, or it can be used against them later in court. This is probably why they approached it the way they did, as they had no obligation to help pay for the expenses. They probably didn’t want to go after her, but came to the conclusion that this was the best way to maintain the copyright while also supporting her cause.
they sued a teen over a name back then. and today they'll be kicked out of the career market.
Breaking news McDonald's sues Thomas D'Urfey, writer of old McDonald had a farm
hes ded
@@pxnzersso? Dead people have been put on trial before. Just look up the Cadaver Synod.
@@pxnzersTbh I wouldn't be surprised if McDonald's did try to sue his estate
Creator got his facts wrong. McDonald's never sued this woman. They just sent her a letter. She hired a lawyer to send a letter back, and they settled. No court was ever involved.
You're silly. The song was way before the burger.
The thing people need to realize: if you have a trademark you are legally obligated to enforce it or lose the trademark. They had to sue, but they gave her a large donation because it would be in bad taste to do that to a charity.
Well then... use it or lose it!
Oh no! They wouldve lost a trademark for a name they have never used and aren't even planning on using, can't let that happen.
the whole criticism against Mcdonalds is stupid. It wasn't her last name, is was inspired by her last name and she chose something that was already trademarked by mcdonalds. So, what is Mcdonalds supposed to do except exactly what they did? I'm shocked she even thought she could fight this.
@drunktrump5209 it's mostly the fact that businesses like that trademark anything and everything that is close to what they are most known for.
Like McDonald's, they have damn near anything and everything that starts with Mc trademarked. You would basically be forced to use your exact name after the Mc in order to not get sued, and not everyone wants their business/org to be named the exact same as their name.
Would be like if I had some giant business that specializes in cat products and I named it Cat house, then paid to trademark everything that starts with Cat. That would be stupidly annoying because noone would be able to make anything that starts with cat without using something super unique like their name since I have the trademarks to everything else.
Yes, but that doesn't really apply here. They could just as easily did that by either ensuring that she meets some sort of standard or that it's adequately clear that she hasn't got any connection to their company.
McDonald's legal team would have a heart attack if they looked in a Scottish phone book.
McDonald's paid thousands of dollars to harrass someone. Wow
Ive Boycotted McDonald's for years.
And you aren't missed
@@themindeclectic9821 you guys seriously love eating that gunk?
Next there gonna sue Shakespeare
McDonald's knew just how huge of a PR nightmare this would become.
Another reason to not eat their swill. FJB
Grabbing names you have no intention of ever using and have no plans at all, should be stopped.
@@MorisZone- Bet, let's do it.
@@MorisZone- Where the next trump rally?
@@MorisZone- Gonna be the best spot to get signatures. Let's do it 🫡
How do you know they have no intention of using it? They've used McFeast. Why not McFest?
@@cisium1184 Where are the plans?
Actual W for McDonald's
W for the Mcclusky
W for disabled athletes
Everyone won
Nah an L for McDonald’s. They shouldn’t have sued in the first place
Not really
How tf is that a W for McDonald's?
@thatinstrumentalsguy they didn't have a choice. In legal terms if you fail to sue for infringement when you notice it then you lose the right to sue in the future.
@@Onionking38 you know what other companies would have mostly done? Not give a fuck and not pay her
There should be laws against frivolous lawsuits like this. You can’t trademark the name macdonald
As a Scot, this is outrageous!
they'd sue Donald trump for being named Donald, but he's already in court for 91 indicted felonies 💀
So real tho💀
Innocent untill proven guilty.
@@3Gbroyotahes been proven guilty for half of those
@@Shuhuayogurt proof?
@@3Gbroyota Google and the news are both free