Sam the Octopus @troubleMoney@computerfairi.es

@pup_hime yep, does make for funny situations like this though

@pup_hime oh, if McDonalds weren't trying to take the piss they would have used common sense, but their arrogance inclined the court to take a fully by the book approach

if anything it's the fact that courts are run by humans that fucked them on this one

@pup_hime it's not nonsense, it's the 100% by the book legality of the decision

Now if McDonalds hadn't been taking the piss by trying to cite wikipedia the court would have probably come to a more sensible verdict, but they were taking the piss, and now have to lodge an appeal to get their trademark back, probably only covering products this time

@pup_hime in addition to that, the court has to go by the evidence presented

McDonalds didn't provide any evidence that they actually sold Big Macs, they just gave print-outs of their website and wikipedia, which doesn't count as evidence of sales

And so as the court could only rule on the evidence presented, they did, despite the fact that it's common knowledge that McDonalds do indeed sell Big Macs

(2/2)

@pup_hime the trademark was for both products and locations, so people couldn't call their shop "Big Mac" or anything

But McDonalds didn't give the court any evidence that the "Big Mac" trademark was in use for any locations so the trademark was struck down as you have to use the trademark for the described purposes or you lose it

(1/2)