When McDonald’s Trademark Bullying Backfired
McDonald’s walked into a courtroom expecting to crush a small Irish burger chain. They walked out having lost the
McDonald’s walked into a courtroom expecting to crush a small Irish burger chain. They walked out having lost the exclusive rights to “Big Mac” across the entire European Union. Within a week, Burger King was selling burgers called “Like a Big Mac, But Actually Big” and “The Burger Big Mac Wished It Was.” The whole thing generated nearly 5 billion impressions and became the best sales week in Burger King Sweden’s history.
The McDonald’s trademark disaster began with corporate arrogance and ended with one of the most spectacular legal backfires in fast food history. A company worth over $200 billion tried to bully a regional Irish chain that had never left Ireland. The Irish chain fought back. McDonald’s lost. And competitors turned the loss into the greatest marketing opportunity they’d ever been handed.
How McDonald’s Started This Fight
Pat McDonagh earned his nickname playing Gaelic football as a teenager in the 1960s. When he opened his first restaurant in Galway in 1978, he called it Supermac’s after himself. The chain grew steadily across Ireland, reaching over 100 locations by 2015. For nearly 40 years, McDonald’s never said a word about the name.
Then Supermac’s announced plans to expand into Britain, Australia, and the broader European Union. To operate across EU member states, the company needed an EU-wide trademark. When Supermac’s filed the application in 2015, McDonald’s suddenly discovered that “Supermac’s” was apparently too similar to “Big Mac” and would confuse consumers.
The opposition made no sense. Supermac’s had operated since 1978 without McDonald’s objecting. The Irish chain served Irish customers with zero international presence. The two companies didn’t compete outside Ireland. But McDonald’s had leverage. Opposing the trademark application forced Supermac’s to either abandon expansion plans or fight an expensive legal battle against a corporation with effectively unlimited resources.
In 2017, Supermac’s filed again. McDonald’s opposed again. This time, Supermac’s managing director Pat McDonagh decided to fight back hard. Instead of just defending the trademark application, Supermac’s filed a counterclaim requesting cancellation of McDonald’s entire “Big Mac” EU trademark registration. The argument was brilliant. Under EU law, trademarks must be put to “genuine use” within a continuous five-year period. If McDonald’s couldn’t prove genuine use of “Big Mac” across all goods and services the trademark supposedly protected, the whole registration should be revoked. McDonald’s trademark bullying was about to backfire catastrophically.
The Case McDonald’s Couldn’t Win
McDonald’s filed evidence attempting to prove genuine use of the McDonald’s trademark for Big Mac between November 2012 and November 2017. The company submitted affidavits from representatives in the UK, France, and Germany stating they had sold over 1.4 billion Big Macs across those three countries during that period. They provided brochures, advertising materials, website printouts, packaging samples, and even a Wikipedia entry about the Big Mac.
The European Union Intellectual Property Office examined the evidence and found it pathetically insufficient. The affidavits came from McDonald’s own employees. While such evidence carries some weight, the EUIPO gives it far less value than independent third-party proof. The advertising materials and packaging samples provided no detail about distribution, circulation, or actual sales volumes. The website printouts didn’t demonstrate real transactions or consumer engagement. The Wikipedia entry was dismissed as unreliable since anyone can edit Wikipedia.
Most critically, McDonald’s evidence showed no sales figures, turnover data, website traffic statistics, or distribution details for many goods and services covered by the trademark. The company claimed “Big Mac” protected chicken sandwiches, foods prepared from poultry products, and restaurant services including drive-throughs and carry-out food preparation. But the evidence focused almost entirely on the beef burger called “Big Mac.”
The EUIPO stated: “The finding that genuine use has not been proven in the present case is due not to an excessively high standard of proof, but to the fact that the EUTM proprietor chose to restrict the evidence submitted.” Translation: McDonald’s could have proven genuine use but submitted garbage evidence instead, apparently assuming their size and brand recognition would be enough.
In January 2019, the EUIPO revoked McDonald’s “Big Mac” trademark registration entirely across all EU member states. McDonald’s lost exclusive rights to “Big Mac” throughout Europe. The McDonald’s trademark that the company had wielded as a weapon against a small Irish competitor was gone.
Burger King’s Perfect Response
Burger King Sweden saw the opportunity immediately. Less than a week after the ruling, Burger King restaurants in Stockholm changed their menu boards. Regular Burger King products got temporary new names, all referencing Big Mac. The items included “Like a Big Mac, But Actually Big,” “The Burger Big Mac Wished It Was,” “Kind of Like a Big Mac, But Juicier and Tastier,” “Anything But a Big Mac,” and “Big Mac-ish But Flame Grilled Of Course.”
The campaign was brilliantly simple and cheap. Burger King didn’t create new products. They renamed existing menu items, filmed customers ordering them with the ridiculous new names, and let the internet do the rest. Ingo Stockholm, the advertising agency behind the campaign, spent minimal money on production. The entire stunt relied on earned media and social virality.
It worked beyond anyone’s expectations. The campaign generated 4.77 billion impressions across blogs, Twitter, Instagram, and news coverage. International press covered the story extensively. The week the campaign launched became the best January sales week in Burger King Sweden’s history. McDonald’s, already humiliated by losing the McDonald’s trademark case, now had to watch competitors openly mock them while selling more burgers.
Burger King’s trolling extended the story’s life far beyond the court ruling. Without Burger King’s response, the EUIPO decision would have been a niche legal story read by trademark lawyers and briefly mentioned in business news. Burger King turned it into a global phenomenon that made McDonald’s look incompetent and vindictive while positioning Burger King as the underdog’s champion.
What This Means For Trademarks
The McDonald’s trademark case established important precedent in EU intellectual property law. Owning a famous brand doesn’t exempt companies from proving genuine use. Trademark registrations covering broad categories of goods and services require evidence demonstrating use across those categories, not just the most famous product. And using trademark opposition to block competitors from expanding can backfire if the opposing party fights back with cancellation actions.
For businesses, the lesson is clear. Trademark bullying works only when the target can’t afford to fight. Supermac’s could have folded, abandoned EU expansion, and McDonald’s would have won through intimidation. Instead, Pat McDonagh spent the money, hired lawyers, and went on offense. The result was McDonald’s losing a trademark worth potentially hundreds of millions in licensing and enforcement value.
The McDonald’s trademark disaster also demonstrates how legal losses compound through public relations damage. Losing the Big Mac trademark hurt. Burger King’s viral trolling campaign multiplied that hurt exponentially. McDonald’s became the villain in a story where they started as the aggressor and ended as the loser, all while competitors profited from their humiliation.
McDonald’s eventually won back limited rights to “Big Mac” in specific categories after appealing and providing better evidence. But the damage was done. The McDonald’s trademark that seemed untouchable had been revoked, competitors had mocked them globally, and everyone learned that even the golden arches can lose when they overreach.
