Meta Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Approval of AI Chatbots Allowing Sexual Interactions With Minors 
Australian Scandium Project Backed by Richard Friedland Poised to Support U.S. Critical Minerals Stockpile 
Nvidia Nears $20 Billion OpenAI Investment as AI Funding Race Intensifies 
Once Upon a Farm Raises Nearly $198 Million in IPO, Valued at Over $724 Million 
Newly Released DOJ Epstein Files Expose High-Profile Connections Across Politics and Business 
SpaceX Prioritizes Moon Mission Before Mars as Starship Development Accelerates 
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration Move to End TPS for Haitian Immigrants 
Trump Family Files $10 Billion Lawsuit Over IRS Tax Disclosure 
Instagram Outage Disrupts Thousands of U.S. Users 
Supreme Court Signals Doubts Over Trump’s Bid to Fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook 
Rio Tinto Shares Hit Record High After Ending Glencore Merger Talks 
Global PC Makers Eye Chinese Memory Chip Suppliers Amid Ongoing Supply Crunch 
Federal Judge Restores Funding for Gateway Rail Tunnel Project 
Trump Lawsuit Against JPMorgan Signals Rising Tensions Between Wall Street and the White House 
FDA Targets Hims & Hers Over $49 Weight-Loss Pill, Raising Legal and Safety Concerns 
Minnesota Judge Rejects Bid to Halt Trump Immigration Enforcement in Minneapolis 
Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration Unlawfully Halted EV Charger Funding 
McDonald's suffered a setback in a three-year trademark battle as the Australian federal court dismissed their allegations against rival fast-food chain, Hungry Jack's. The lawsuit claimed that Hungry Jack's infringed on McDonald's Big Mac trademark by selling "Big Jack" and "Mega Jack" burgers.
However, the court found that neither burger brand was deceptively similar to the Big Mac, leading to the dismissal of the trademark infringement claims, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.
No Confusion for Consumers Over 'Big Jack' Burgers
The Guardian reported that during the trial, Hungry Jack's chief marketing officer, Scott Baird, acknowledged the "element of cheekiness" in the choice of the burger name. He stated that the brands were not selected due to their similarity to McDonald's burgers but rather to compete with their rival in a playful manner.
Such tactics are common in overseas markets where these fast-food chains go head-to-head.
Justice Stephen Burley, presiding over the case, found no evidence to suggest that consumers would be confused about which restaurant sold the Big Jack or Big Mac. McDonald's failed to provide any compelling evidence of deception or confusion caused by Hungry Jack's branding.
While ruling in favor of Hungry Jack's, Justice Burley acknowledged the echoes of the Big Mac brand in the names Big Jack and Mega Jack. However, he concluded that these names were "recognizably different" from their McDonald's counterparts, allowing Hungry Jack's the opportunity to compete with their own unique identity.
Breach of Consumer Law
While McDonald's did not succeed in proving trademark infringement, they did manage to secure a victory on a separate consumer law claim. The court ruled that Hungry Jack's had misled consumers by falsely advertising that their Big Jack burger contained "25% more Aussie beef" than the Big Mac.
Experts tested and weighed the burger patties, revealing that Hungry Jack's burgers contained significantly less beef than advertised. This ruling highlights the importance of accurate product representation and honest advertising practices.
Hungry Jack's had also filed a separate bid to remove McDonald's "Mega Mac" mark from the register of trademarks. However, the court dismissed this request, indicating that the matter will proceed to a liability hearing. If found liable, Hungry Jack's may face financial penalties for their misleading marketing campaign.
Photo: Annie Spratt/Unsplash
