McPatel Meals Personal Restricted has filed a civil go well with towards McDonald’s Company earlier than an Ahmedabad rural courtroom.
The Gujarat-based snack maker alleged that it has been receiving “groundless threats” from the American fast-food chain resulting from its use of the mark “McPatel.”
McPatel seeks safety from threats
The Indian snack maker filed the go well with below Part 142 of the Commerce Marks Act, 1999, aiming for an injunction to forestall McDonald’s from initiating or threatening authorized motion over its use of the “Mc” prefix in its company and product branding.
The case is listed for listening to on July 28, 2025, Bar and Bench reported.
The place is the problem stemming from?
The battle started when McPatel Meals utilized to register the mark “McPatel” below Class 30 (overlaying bakery items, snacks, noodles, confectionery, sauces and frozen meals) in March 2024.
Nonetheless, on August 27, 2024, McDonald’s filed an objection earlier than the Indian Commerce Marks Registry towards this software.
McDonald’s strikes again
In its discover of opposition, McDonald’s alleged the next:
- International enforcement: McDonald’s argues that its emblems are registered in additional than 100 nations, solely with an goal to guard towards third-party use of “Mc”-formative marks.
- Dominant factor: The fast-food chain additionally argues that “Patel” and “Meals” are fairly widespread, making “Mc” the dominant and source-identifying factor in “McPatel”.
- Dangerous intention: McDonald’s additionally alleged that McPatel adopted the mark in unhealthy religion to profit from McDonald’s goodwill, resulting in confusion and deception and of the model’s status.
McPatel’s rebuttal: No monopoly on “Mc”
In its counter assertion filed on October 29, 2024, McPatel Meals denied all allegations, asserting the next:
- No prior battle: The Trademark Registrar is alleged to have discovered no conflicting marks on the examination stage, resulting in the appliance’s acceptance and commercial.
- Lack of proof: McPatel additionally pointed to the absence of precise confusion or client deception.
- Jealousy: McPatel contends that the opposition is pushed by “enterprise jealousy” and is filed in unhealthy religion to harass a home firm.
What’s subsequent ?
McPatel stood by its rationale that “Mc” is a typical prefix and McDonald’s can not declare monopoly over it throughout all mixtures or industries.
As of now, the trademark registry has not made a last determination on the dispute. The continued litigation is anticipated to trigger additional delays, as reported by Bar and Bench.