Australia news This article is more than 2 months old‘Big Jack’: McDonald’s loses legal food fight over Australian rival’s choice of burger name
This article is more than 2 months oldCourt rules Hungry Jack’s had not infringed on trademark, but had misled consumers over ‘25% more Aussie beef’ claim
- Follow our Australia news live blog for the latest updates
- Get our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcast
McDonald’s has lost a three-year trademark battle over the sale of “Big Jack” burgers sold by its rival, Hungry Jack’s.
The US hamburger giant sued Hungry Jack’s in 2020, claiming its sale of the Big Jack and Mega Jack burgers infringed the Big Mac trademark.
On Thursday the federal court dismissed the allegations, saying neither burger brand was deceptively similar to the Big Mac and Hungry Jack’s had not engaged in trademark infringement.
But McDonald’s succeeded on a separate consumer law claim. The court found Hungry Jack’s had misled consumers by advertising that its Big Jack burger contained “25% more Aussie beef” than its Big Mac counterpart.
During the trial, Hungry Jack’s chief marketing officer, Scott Baird, told the court there was an “element of cheekiness” in the firm’s choice of burger name, but said the brands were not chosen because of their similarity with McDonald’s burgers.
“I was aware that the name would likely be perceived as a deliberate taunt of McDonald’s,” he wrote in an affidavit.
These kinds of “taunts” were common in overseas markets where the two fast food chains competed, he said.
Justice Stephen Burley found consumers would not be confused about which restaurant sold the Big Jack or Big Mac, and said McDonald’s had provided no evidence of any deception or confusion.
“I am not persuaded that Hungry Jack’s fashioned the name Big Jack for the purpose of misleading consumers,” he said.
Sign up to Morning Mail
Free daily newsletterOur Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion
Hungry Jack’s wished to compete with McDonald’s through a name which had echoes of the Big Mac brand but was “recognisably different” from it, the judge found.
He made similar findings when comparing the Mega Jack and Mega Mac trade marks.
However, Burley ruled Hungry Jack’s had breached consumer law through the marketing campaign about meat content.
After testing and weighing of the different burger patties by experts, the judge found Hungry Jack’s burgers contained “significantly less” than the 25% additional beef advertised.
A separate bid by Hungry Jack’s to remove McDonald’s “Mega Mac” mark from the register of trademarks was also dismissed by the court.
The matter will now go to a liability hearing, where Hungry Jack’s could face financial penalties for its misleading marketing campaign.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7tbTEoKyaqpSerq96wqikaJmlqMGzrcuimGamlazAcH6Pa2popp%2BrfHKCjpugoGWalrCsecycm6imkaGxtHnHrqWgqqlit6KvyqxknKelp8Fur8CsnGaapae0pr6Mp5imnV2isqLAjJymp6yVo8E%3D