沒收到驗證郵件？請確認(rèn)郵箱是否正確或 重新發(fā)送郵件
#本文僅代表作者觀點，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，不代表IPRdaily立場#
發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）
作者：Daniel Bailey (Associate) 麥?zhǔn)似嬗鴤惗剞k公室
翻譯：黃雪芳 (Partner) 麥?zhǔn)似姹本┺k公室
供稿：麥?zhǔn)似嬷R產(chǎn)權(quán)
原標(biāo)題：麥當(dāng)勞怎么失掉Big Mac (巨無霸) 商標(biāo)的？
麥當(dāng)勞的“Big Mac”商標(biāo)在歐盟是怎么被愛爾蘭漢堡連鎖快餐企業(yè)超級麥克（Supermac's）公司撤銷的？如本文作者丹尼爾.貝利（Daniel Bailey）所述，因為麥當(dāng)勞的證據(jù)不夠。
過去幾周里，關(guān)于麥當(dāng)勞的消息鋪天蓋地，其中很多也許不為麥當(dāng)勞所喜。
大西洋的那一邊，美國大學(xué)生橄欖球全國聯(lián)賽冠軍獲得者克萊姆森老虎隊在白宮享用了1000個“hamberders”組成的國宴，并稱之“我們吃過最好的一餐”（該說法后來遭否認(rèn)）。
（譯者注：特朗普總統(tǒng)發(fā)Twitter消息時，將漢堡包的英文hamburgers誤寫成hamberders）
這一邊則是，麥當(dāng)勞在歐盟注冊的第62638號商標(biāo)“BIG MAC （巨無霸）”，被愛爾蘭漢堡連鎖快餐企業(yè)超級麥克（Supermac's）成功撤銷。
這兩家連鎖快餐巨頭就“mac”一詞的使用問題，多年來一直酣戰(zhàn)不休。
表面看，歐盟本次撤銷裁定令人震驚?！癇ig Mac”是全球最大的連鎖快餐店出售的全球最有名的餐品之一。巨無霸在世界各地?zé)o處不在、品牌無人不曉，就連《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人》（The Economist）雜志都用巨無霸在全球的成本來分析各國的價差和匯率差。
本次撤銷裁定并不會讓麥當(dāng)勞的巨無霸就此下架，但若該裁定得以進(jìn)一步維持，則將有助于超級麥克（Supermac's）在歐盟市場擴(kuò)張。
這是怎么發(fā)生的？
一個英國或歐盟的商標(biāo)注冊滿5年后，如果未在注冊涵蓋的商品和服務(wù)上進(jìn)行使用，則任何第三方均可以申請撤銷該商標(biāo)。
超級麥克提交了申請，要求撤銷麥當(dāng)勞的“BIG MAC”歐盟注冊。麥當(dāng)勞提交了該商標(biāo)2012年4月至2017年4月間在歐盟使用的證據(jù)。這事很簡單，至少看起來如此。
證據(jù)和裁定
為維護(hù)注冊，麥當(dāng)勞提交了其英國、法國和德國代表簽署的聲明、廣告材料手冊和打印件、公司網(wǎng)站打印件、維基百科的詞條介紹。
聲明里包含了一些銷售數(shù)據(jù)，顯示麥當(dāng)勞2011至2016年在英國、法國、德國銷售了超過14億個巨無霸漢堡。
然而，歐盟知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局覺得證據(jù)不足以顯示商標(biāo)投入了真實使用。麥當(dāng)勞提交的證據(jù)類型，尤其是其各國代表提交的聲明，證明效力著實有限。
歐盟知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局得出結(jié)論，麥當(dāng)勞的證據(jù)未提供商標(biāo)使用程度的足夠細(xì)節(jié)，而且材料中“沒有包含任何可以證明該歐盟商標(biāo)在其涵蓋商品或服務(wù)上存在真實商業(yè)呈現(xiàn)的數(shù)據(jù)”。
如何保護(hù)你自己？
巨無霸無處不在。證據(jù)卻如此無力。令人吃驚。
特別是，麥當(dāng)勞本可以提供客觀數(shù)據(jù)和餐廳出售巨無霸的照片以在案件中獲得更有利地位。
本案對于品牌所有者是一個警醒，不論品牌大小，保留商標(biāo)使用的各種記錄都非常重要，這樣才能在之后需要時提交具體的、客觀的證據(jù)。
關(guān)于如何證明商標(biāo)使用，特許商標(biāo)代理人是提供這方面建議的最佳人選。
后續(xù)的進(jìn)展？
官方裁定后，超級麥克發(fā)了一個聲明，稱“這是整個商業(yè)行業(yè)的一次重大勝利，這將制止大公司的‘商標(biāo)霸凌’，不使用就不得囤積商標(biāo)”。
筆者實難認(rèn)同該聲明的內(nèi)容。就算撤銷裁定出了，巨無霸仍然是全球最有名的餐品之一，而且，麥當(dāng)勞顯然正在使用Big Mac商標(biāo)。
麥當(dāng)勞這邊則早早已確認(rèn)將提起上訴。
本案將使麥當(dāng)勞獲得持續(xù)的媒體曝光率，尤其是，上訴會不會贏？以及，2019年美國橄欖球超級杯大賽的贏家們又吃得下幾個“hamberders”？
盯著上訴進(jìn)展吧。
附：英文版
How McDonald's lost its Big Mac trade mark？
How did Irish burger chain Supermac's manage to get the Big Mac trade mark cancelled across the EU? The answer lies in the lack of evidence presented by McDonald's as Daniel Bailey explains.
These past few weeks have seen McDonald's receive a lot of, perhaps unwanted, publicity.
On the other side of the pond, the Clemson Tiger college football team celebrated winning the national championships by making their way through 1000 'hamberders' in the White House, describing the meal as "the best meal we ever had" (this claim that has since been denied).
A little closer to home, McDonald's European Union trade mark registration for BIG MAC (No. 62638) was successfully revoked by an Irish burger chain, Supermac's.
The two fast-food chains have been locked in a trade mark disputes for a number of years over the use of the term 'mac'.
On face value, this is a surprising decision. The Big Mac is one of the most well-known menu items in the world, sold by the world's largest fast food chain. The Big Mac is so widely available globally, and the brand is so well known, that The Economist uses the cost of Big Macs worldwide to compare prices and exchange rates between different countries.
This does not stop McDonald's selling Big Macs, but if it is upheld it may help open the door for Supermac's to expand into the EU.
How is this possible?
Once a UK or EU trade mark has been registered for at least five years, it is possible for a third party to apply to revoke the trade mark if it has not been used in relation to the goods and services which it covers.
Supermac's applied to cancel McDonald’s EUTM registration for BIG MAC and McDonald's was required to submit evidence that it has used this brand, in the EU, between April 2012 and April 2017. Easy, or so it would seem.
The evidence and decision
In support of its registration, McDonald's submitted statements signed by representatives of McDonald's in the UK, France and Germany; brochures and printouts of advertising materials; printouts from their own websites; and a print out from Wikipedia.
The statements contained some sales figures showing that McDonald's sold over 1.4 billion Big Macs in the UK, France and Germany between 2011-2016.
The EUIPO felt the evidence was not sufficient to show that the trade mark had been put to genuine use. The type of evidence submitted, in particular the statements submitted by representatives of McDonald's, was of only limited value.
As such, EUIPO concluded that the evidence did not provide sufficient details concerning the extent of use and the materials "do not give any data for the real commercial presence of the EUTM for any of the relevant goods or services".
How to protect yourself
With Big Mac being so ubiquitous, it is surprising that the evidence submitted in this case was not more robust.
In particular, McDonald's would have been in a better position if it had provided objective data and images showing the products for sale in its restaurants.
This case is a stark reminder to brand owners, both big and small, of the importance of maintaining comprehensive records of brand use, so that they can provide specific and objective evidence.
Chartered Trade Mark Attorneys are best placed to advice on how to prove use of a trade mark.
What next？
Supermac's has since issued a statement "this is a great victory for business in general and stops bigger companies from 'trademark bullying' by not allowing them to hoard trade marks without using them".
This commenter struggles to agree with this statement. The Big Mac is one of the world's most famous menu items and, despite this decision; McDonald's is clearly using the Big Mac trade mark.
McDonald's has wasted no time confirming it will appeal this decision.
The above leaves the door open for more publicity for McDonald's, in particular, will the appeal be allowed and secondly, what how many 'hamberders' can the winners of the 2019 Super Bowl eat.
Keep an eye open for the appeal.
發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）
作者：Daniel Bailey (Associate) 麥?zhǔn)似嬗鴤惗剞k公室
翻譯：黃雪芳 (Partner) 麥?zhǔn)似姹本┺k公室
供稿：麥?zhǔn)似嬷R產(chǎn)權(quán)
編輯：IPRdaily趙珍 校對：IPRdaily縱橫君
“投稿”請投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”
「關(guān)于IPRdaily」
IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務(wù)平臺，致力于連接全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)人，用戶匯聚了中國、美國、德國、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務(wù)、政府機(jī)構(gòu)、律所、事務(wù)所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶（國內(nèi)25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質(zhì)量的技術(shù)資源+專利資源，通過媒體構(gòu)建全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領(lǐng)投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。
（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com 中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn）
本文來自IPRdaily.cn 中文網(wǎng)并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請注明出處：“http://m.globalwellnesspartner.com/”
共發(fā)表文章文章不錯，犒勞下辛苦的作者吧
- 我也說兩句
- 還可以輸入140個字
