McDonalds suffering from a dodgy McCurry

908_mcIt's always great seeing McDonalds taking a hit in the courts and it's happened again in their legal fight against a Maylaysian restaurant called McCurry.

The burger behemoth have chased the owners of McCurry through the courts for the past eight years, claiming that their use of the 'Mc' prefix is an attempt to pass themselves off as part of the McDonalds empire.

But Kuala Lumpar's Federal Court has had the final say and has told McDonalds to take their legal challenge and stick it up their arses. In a more professional-sounding form of legalese, obviously.

"We feel great that this eight-year legal battle is finally over," McCurry owner P Suppiah told reporters. "We can now go ahead with whatever we plan to do such as opening new branches," he said, before adding: “Plus we can start selling breakfast dishes such as curry porridge, 'jolly meals' for the kids and launch our corporate mascot, a clown who we're calling Jerry McCurry.

Except he didn't really.


  • Gustav
    Not the first time either - McChina had a lawsuit too
  • swampy_donkey The news, but as it happens.
  • Nobby
    It is actually up their McArses.
  • Shadow
    oh no. Its going to be like the wii with all these wiily bad jokes
  • DSG
    Does any one else think the logo looks like DSGs old Currys logo? Maybe they've actually moved into fast food business. Not selling enough guarantees and what not eh?
  • Richard B.
    The recent McDonald's v. McCurry ruling is not surprising. Just by the three main DuPont factors alone, appearance, sound and meaning, these two marks are arguably not confusingly similar. Add to that the difference in menus, and the difference in trade dress, and you have a pretty strong case for McCurry, which the panel seemingly accepted. The letters "Mc" cannot be totally, exclusively owned by one entity worldwide. And it's not as if people are going to mix up McCurry with McDonalds. Now, if McCurry used the golden arches, had a clown and similar characters associated with the restaurant, that would be problematic. Those elements were not present in this case. On our site,, we help with these trademark issues and any trademark questions.

What do you think?

Your comment