Mac attacks

Looks like McDonald's is being zealous with enforcing their trademarks. One cannot blame them. A trademark can be lost by allowing the mark to become "generic." What does this mean? When you get a registered trademark, the government gives you the exclusive right to use that mark or logo in connection with your goods or services. There cannot be any "confusingly similar" (which is different than similar) marks.

That said, it is not the duty of the government to protect or police people with similar marks. They may allow a similar mark to be registered, if they do not believe it to be "confusingly similar." Good news for people filing new trademarks, but bad news for the current holder of the mark.

Enter trademark enforcement. Trademark holders use watch services to look for similar marks, then they go after the "confusingly similar" ones. Sometimes this definition of "confusingly similar" is taken too far, and they go after marks they should not. There is a reason to be diligent and zealous- they could lose their mark. People in the United States have a type of painkiller called "aspirin." Way back when, that was a registered trademark of Bayer. They did not enforce their trademark, and lost it to the public domain. You will noticed every now and them companies taking out ads to remind people that their name is a trademark, and not a generic name (e.g. "facial tissue" over "Kleenex;" "photocopier" over "Xerox;" and "internet search" over "Google.") It's good to be well-recognized by the public, but not to the point of being generic.

That said, McDonald's lately has been going after anything with a "Mac" in the name. I can understand "Mc," but "Mac" might be too far. This causes problems in certain areas, such as Scotland, where there are many "Mac" and "Mc" surnames. You'll note the article above is from a Scottish newspaper.