The Big ‘Mc’ Feud: Here’s why a Gujarat snack maker is suing McDonald’s
McPatil Foods Private Limited filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s Corporation before an Ahmedabad rural court.
The Gujarat-based snack manufacturer claimed that he received “unquestioned threats from the American Fast-Food chain because he used the“ McPatil ”sign.
McPATEL wants to be protected from threats
The Indian snack manufacturer filed the case in accordance with the 142th episode of the 1999 Trade Brands Law, and McDonald’s decided to prevent or threaten the legal proceedings on the use of “MC” in the corporate and product branding.
The case was listed for a hearing on 28 July 2025, Bar and bench notified.
Where does the problem caused?
The conflict began in March 2024 when he applied to record the “mcpatel” sign in class 30 (covering oven goods, snacks, noodles, confectionery, sauces and frozen foods) in March 2024.
However, on August 27, 2024, McDonald’s appealed before the Indian Trade Brand Registry.
McDonald’s Strikes Back
In the opposition notification, McDonald’s claimed the following:
- Global Application: McDonald’s argues that trademarks are registered in more than 100 countries and that only “MC”-formative brands are recorded to protect against third-party use.
- The dominant element: Fast-Food chain also argues that “patel” and “foods ve and make“ MC ”a dominant and resource-descriptive element in mcpatel.
- Maltest intentions: McDonald’s also claimed that McPATEL accepted a sign of maliciously to benefit from McDonald’s Goodwill, and leads to confusion and deception and the reputation of the brand.
McPATEL’s Rebuttal: “MC” no monopoly
In a counter statement opened on October 29, 2024, McPatil Foods rejected all the allegations by arguing the following:
- There is no previous conflict: It is said that the trademark registration company could not find a contradictory brand during the exam stage and led to the acceptance and advertisement of the application.
- Lack of evidence: McPATEL also pointed out the absence of actual confusion or consumer deception.
- Jealousy: McPatil claims that the opposition was directed by the “Job Jealousy ve and that it was opened with malicious intention to harass a indigenous company.
What’s next?
McPatil stood on the grounds that the “MC” was a common prefix and that McDonald’s could not demand monopoly on all combinations or industries.
As of now, the trademark registry has not made a final decision on disagreement. Ongoing lawsuits are expected to cause more delays as reported. Bar and bench.
