McDonald's has been involved in a number of lawsuits and other legal cases for 70 years of fast food chain history. Much of this has involved trademark issues, but McDonald's has also launched a defamation suit that has been described as "the biggest corporate public relations disaster in history".
Video McDonald's legal cases
Partnership settings
McDonald's India - Case of partnership Vikram Bakshi
On 30 August 2013, McDonald's published a public notice in selected newspapers, stating that McDonald's Indian partner Vikram Bakshi has ceased to be the managing director of Connaught Plaza Restaurants (CPRL) in accordance with the expiration of his term on July 17, 2013. CPRL, a joint venture between McDonald's and Vikram Bakshi, is responsible for managing over 150 McDonald's outlets in North and East India. Bakshi has been the face of the company in India for nearly two decades. After being overthrown suddenly, Bakshi strives to fight for his rights and rights in the Corporate Law Council (CLB). Bakshi claims to have recorded more than 490 crore rupees worth of revenue for the American food chain. While McDonald's seeks to buy Vikram shares despite huge profits, another joint venture with Amit Jatia, who runs chains in West and South India under Hardcastle Restaurants, has been underestimated. In various books, McDonald's sold their share of Hardcastle Restaurants joint venture to owners alongside Amit Jatia with reported loss of 99% in 2011, making it the premier franchisor.
The court is under the scope of the CBL with the next hearing scheduled in early October 2013. In 2017, the National Company Law Court returns Bakshi as executive director of Connaught Plaza Restaurant.
El Salvador
In 1996, McDonald's repealed franchise entrepreneur Roberto Bukele for his restaurant in El Salvador. McDonald's told Bukele that the franchise that he operated for 24 years has ended and will not be updated. Bukele, who has a 1994 agreement that he believes expands the franchise until 2014, refuses to close or change the image of his restaurant.
McDonald's won in lower courts, but the appeal court favored Bukele and eventually in 2012 McDonald's was ordered to pay $ 23.9 million in judgment to Bukele.
Bukele alleges that he never received a $ 23.9 million decision and has filed a new request in court for $ 21 million in interest on the award.
Maps McDonald's legal cases
Defamation
McLibel (English)
In 1990, McDonald's brought environmental campaigners Helen Steel and Dave Morris to court after they distributed a flyer entitled "What's Wrong with McDonald's?" on the streets of London. The high-profile court, which came to be known as the McLibel Case, lasted for seven and a half years, the longest in the history of English law.
Although the High Court judge finally decided to support McDonald's on some things, John Vidal called it a Pyrrhic victory. The long legal battle is a public relations disaster, with every aspect of the company's work practices examined and the media presenting the case as a battle of David and Goliath. In addition, the damage received is negligible compared to companies that estimate Ã, Â £ 10 million in legal fees because the court decides to support a number of claims by the accused, including that McDonald's exploits children in advertising, is anti-union and indirectly exploited. and causing suffering to animals. McDonald's was awarded Ã, Â £ 60,000 damage, which was later reduced to Ã, Â £ 40,000 by the Court of Appeals. Steel and Morris announced that they had no intention of paying, and the company later confirmed that they would not pursue the money. Steel and Morris went on to challenge the defamation laws of Britain in the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that the lack of access to legal aid and the heavy burden of evidence existing to them, as a requirement of defendants to prove their claim under British law is a violation of the right to fair trial and freedom of expression. The court decided to support them and the British Government was forced to introduce legislation to amend the defamation laws.
Intellectual property
MacJoy (Philippines) MacJoy (Philippines) In February 2007, the Philippine Supreme Court upheld McDonald's rights to its internationally registered and registered trademark. As a result, MacJoy's owner, the Espina family, was forced to change its trademark to MyJoy, which came into effect with the reopening of its two branches in Cebu in August of that year.
McCoffee (USA)
In 1994, McDonald's succeeded in forcing Elizabeth McCaughey from the San Francisco Bay Area to change the trade name of her McCoffee coffee shop, which has operated under that name for 17 years. "This is when I handed a little 'c' to an American company," said Elizabeth McCaughey, who named it an adaptation of her family name.
Norman McDonald Country Drive-Inn (USA)
From the early 1960s to the mid-1980s, Norman McDonald runs a small "Country Drive-Inn" restaurant in Philpot, Kentucky called "McDonald's Hamburger; Country Drive-Inn", which at the time also had a gas station and department store. McDonald's chain of restaurants forced Norman to remove the arch and added the name McDonald Norman to the sign so customers would not be confused thinking the restaurant was affiliated with the McDonald's restaurant chain. The restaurant is open till today (though no longer has a gas station).
McChina_Wok_Away_ (UK) "> McChina Wok Away (English)
In 2001, McDonald's lost nine years of legal action against Frank Yuen, owner of McChina Wok Away , a small chain of Chinese takeaway outlets in London. Judge David Neuberger ruled that McChina's name would not cause confusion amongst customers and that McDonald's was not entitled to Mc's prefix.
In 1996, McDonald's forced the owner of a Scottish sandwich shop Mary Blair from Fenny Stratford, Buckinghamshire to drop McMunchies as its trade name. Mrs. Blair does not sell burgers or chips. He said he chose the name because he liked the word snack and wanted the cafe to have a Scottish feel. The sign of the cafe reflects this, featuring Scottish thistles and the flag of St. Andrew's. But in a statement to Mrs Blair's lawyer, McDonald's says if someone uses the prefix Mc, even by accident, they use something that does not belong to them.
MacDonald.27s_.28UK _-_ Cayman_Islands.29 ">
MacDonald's (English - Cayman Islands)
It is often reported that McDonald filed a lawsuit against the MacDonald Family Restaurant, located on Grand Cayman. McDonald's apparently lost the case, and in addition, was barred from opening a McDonald's location in Grand Cayman. However, this is an urban legend. McAllan (Denmark) McAllan (Denmark)
McAllan (Denmark)In 1996, McDonald's lost a legal battle in the Danish Supreme Court to force Allan Pedersen, hotdog seller, to drop McAllan's shop name . Pedersen had previously visited Scotland on a whiskey tasting tour. He named his business after his favorite whiskey brand, MacAllan, after contacting the distillery to see if they would object. They did not do it, but McDonald's did it. However, the court decided the customer could distinguish between a one-person seller and a multi-national chain and ordered McDonald's to pay 40,000 kroner ($ 6,900) in court fees. The verdict can not be appealed.
McCurry (Malaysia)
In 2001, McDonald's sued a small restaurant called McCurry , a popular restaurant serving Indian food on Jalan Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. McDonald's claims that the use of the prefix "Mc" violated its trademark, while the defendant claimed that McCurry represented Malaysian Chicken Curry .
In 2006, McDonald's won a preliminary appraisal at the High Court. The judge ruled that Mc's prefix and use of different colors from the McDonald's brand can confuse and deceive customers. In April 2009, however, the three-member Court of Appeals panel overturned the verdict, saying that there is no evidence to suggest that McCurry left his own products like McDonald's. The Court of Appeal also said that McDonald's can not claim exclusive rights to the prefix "Mc" in the country. McDonald appealed the decision to the Federal Court, the highest court in Malaysia. In September 2009, the Federal Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. The appeal of McDonald's was rejected at a cost, and was ordered to pay RM10,000 to McCurry.
South African trademark law
The apartheid politics had prevented earlier expansion into South Africa, but when the apartheid regime ended in the early 1990s, McDonald's decided to expand it there. The Company has recognized South Africa as a potentially significant market and has registered its name as a trademark there in 1968.
Under South African law, trademarks no longer belong to the company if they are not used for a certain period of time. McDonald's has renewed its enrollment in 1968 several times, but did not get an extension. Registration ends and McDonald's finds two fast-food restaurants in South Africa trading under the name MacDonalds. In addition, an entrepreneur has signed up to register the name of McDonald's.
Various lawsuits were filed. The fast food chain was stunned when the court ruled that they had lost the right to a world-renowned name in South Africa. However, the company eventually won on appeal.
Original Ronald McDonald (USA)
The company committed an unsuccessful 32-year legal action against a McDonald's Family Restaurant opened by a man named Ronald McDonald, (not to be confused with a restaurant clown mascot) at Fairbury, Illinois in 1956. McDonald finally continued to use his name at his restaurant, despite objections by McDonald's.
McBrat Case (Australia)
In 2005, McDonald's attempted to stop Queensland lawyer Malcolm McBratney, using the name 'McBrat' in the Brisbane Brisbane Rugby trousers shorts. McDonald's claims the name McBrat should not be registered because it is too similar to the McKits trademark, because the word 'kid' is another term for 'kid'. McBratney, a lawyer specializing in trademark and intellectual property, argues that his family name has been used in Ireland since the 1600s, and that he has the right to use the abbreviation of the name. In 2006, the Register of Trade Marks delegation declared that McBratney could register 'McBrat' as a trademark and that McDonald's had no intellectual property rights over the words 'Mc' and 'Mac'.
McBratney, who specializes in intellectual property law, then brought a lawsuit against McDonald's for his enlistment, in Australia in 1987, from 'McKids'. This trademark is never used in Australia and may therefore be removed because it is not used.
Case brought against McDonald's
H.R. Pufnstuf/McDonaldland
In 1973, Sid and Marty Krofft, creators of H.R. Pufnstuf , successfully sued McDonald's at Sid & amp; Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. , arguing that the entire premise of McDonaldland is basically the result of their television show. In particular, Kroffts claims that the character of Mayor McCheese is a direct copy of their character, "H. R. Pufnstuf" (becoming his own mayor). Initially McDonald's was ordered to pay $ 50,000. The case was later returned in redress, and McDonald's was ordered to pay Kroffts over $ 1 million.
McDonaldland itself, as depicted in the ad, is a magical place where plants, food, and inanimate objects live, speaking character. In addition to being home to Ronald and other core characters, McDonaldland boasts a "thick rocking volcano", anthropomorphized "apple pie tree", "Hamburger Patch" (where McDonald's hamburgers grow from soil like plants), "Filet- O-Fish Lake" , and many other fantastic features based around various McDonald's menu items. In advertisements, various creatures are played by dolls or costumed performers, very similar to the popular H.R. Pufnstuf Program .
Initially McDonald's hopes Kroffts will agree to license its character for commercial promotion. When they refused, McDonaldland was created, deliberately based on H.R. Pufnstuf is displayed in an attempt to duplicate the appeal.
After the lawsuit, the concept of "magical place" was all removed from the ad, as were many of the original characters. What remains is Ronald, Grimace, The Hamburglar, and Fry Kids.
McSleep (Quality Inns International)
In 1988, Quality Inns (now Preferred Hotel) plans to open a new economic hotel chain under the name "McSleep." After McDonald's demanded that Quality Inns not use that name for being infringed, the hotel company filed a lawsuit in federal court to seek a declaration decision that "McSleep" did not infringe. McDonald is charged back, accusing trademark infringement and unfair competition. Finally, McDonald's wins. The court opinion noted that the prefix "Mc" added to the generic word has gained secondary meaning, so in the public eye it means McDonald's, and therefore the name "McSleep" will violate McDonald's trademark.
Tip top Viz (UK)
In 1996, the British adult comic Viz accused McDonald's of copying the long-established name and format of the Tip Top feature, where readers offer sarcastic tips. McDonald's has created an advertising campaign of the same name, which showcased Top Tips (and then suggests an alternative to money saving - go to McDonald's). Some similarities are almost word for word:
- "Save a lot of money on laundry bills, give your dirty shirts to Oxfam They will wash and iron them, then you can buy them back for 50p." - Viz Top Tip, published May 1989.
- "Save a lot of money on laundry bills, give your dirty shirts to thrift stores, they will wash and iron them, then you can buy them back for 50p." - McDonald's Ad, 1996
This case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, donated to charity Comic Relief. However, many readers of Viz believe that the comic has given permission for its use, leading to the submission of Top Posts such as: "Geordie magazine editor, keep paying your mortgage and buy expensive train equipment... by simply licensing the Top Tip concept to a multinational burger company. "
src: i.ytimg.com
Labor
Immokalee (US) Employment Coalition
In March 2001, the Immokalee Workers Coalition, a group of agricultural workers in South Florida, started the campaign demanding a better wage for people choosing the tomatoes used by McDonald's and other fast food companies. McDonald's was the second target after the group managed to fight Taco Bell.
Suit suits search (AS)
src: hbharti.com
Ads
Fries Ads (English)
In 2003, a decision by the UK Advertising Standards Authority stipulated that the company had acted in violation of the practice code in explaining how the fries were prepared. A McDonald's print ad states that "after selecting a particular potato", "we peel it, slice it, fry it, and that's it." It shows a picture of a potato in a McDonald's fry box. In fact, the product was sliced, fried, sometimes added dextrose, then frozen, shipped, and fried again and added salt.
Beef content in French fries
A lawsuit was filed against the McDonald's Company in the early 1990s for putting beef into french fries despite claims that the fries were vegetarian. In fact, the flavored beef is is added to the fries during the production phase. The case revolves around a 1990 McDonald's press release stating that the company's fries will be cooked in 100% vegetable oil and a 1993 letter to customers claiming their fries are vegetarian. McDonald denied this. The lawsuit ended in 2002 when McDonald's announced it would issue another apology and pay $ 100 million for vegetarians and religious groups. Subsequent supervision by the court is necessary to ensure that money paid by McDonald's: "to use funds for programs that serve the interests of those who follow the practice of the vegetarian diet in a broad sense." There is some controversy in this decision, as it benefits non-vegetarian groups such as research institutes that examine vegetarian diets but are not beneficial to vegetarians. In 2005, the appeal filed by vegetarians on the recipient list in this case was rejected, and the $ 10 million recipient chosen by McDonald's was enforced.
Furthermore, material-related lawsuits have been filed against McDonald's since 2006. McDonald's includes its fries into its website in the list of gluten-free products; the lawsuit claims the children suffered severe bowel damage as a result of unpublished changes to French French fry recipes. McDonald's has provided a more complete list of ingredients for its recent French fries. More than 20 lawsuits have been filed against McDonald's on this issue, which is trying to be consolidated by McDonald's Corporations.
Promotion "McMatch and Win Monopoly" (Australia)
In 2001, 34 plaintiffs (representing about 7,000 plaintiffs) filed a class action suit against McDonald's for misbehavior and misdirection arising from the "McMatch & Win Monopoly" promotion before Justice John Dowsett of the Federal Court of Australia. The complainants have tried to claim prizes from a 1999 promotion using game tokens from a 1998 promotion, citing unsuccessful that the remaining 1998 tokens may have been accidentally distributed by McDonald's in 1999.
Halal food demands (Dearborn, Michigan)
In 2013, McDonald's stopped serving halal food at the only two US locations serving halal food, both located in Dearborn, MI after a $ 700,000 lawsuit filed in 2001 in which customers stated that the menu items were not consistently halal. The case was brought to justice by Michael Jaafar, a lawyer from Fairmax Law in Detroit who filed a consumer action class action lawsuit against McDonald's to advertise halal food.
src: jodatlawgroup.com
Health and safety
Also known as the "McDonald's coffee case", Liebeck v. McDonald's is a well-known product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the US debate on lawsuit reform after the jury awarded $ 2.9 million to Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, who sued McDonald's after her suffered third-degree burns of hot coffee spilled on him in one of the company's drive-thrus in 1992. The court judge reduced the total award to $ 640,000, and the parties set the number of secrets before the appeal was set. This case enters a popular understanding as an example of frivolous litigation; ABC News called the case "posters children of excessive lawsuits." Experimental lawyers groups such as the American Trial Lawyers Association and other opposed tort reformers sometimes argue that the lawsuit was justified due to Liebeck's injury rate. In addition, McDonald's failed to give proper warning. Consumer warnings about the possible dangers of their products are strictly enforced by the FDA. Furthermore, McDonald's should not serve potentially harmful substances to their consumers.
src: hbr.org
Discrimination
Magee v. McDonald's is a United States federal lawsuit that began in May 2016 at the Illinois Northern District Court, case number 1: 16-cv-05652, where Scott McGee of Metairie, Louisiana is taking action against McDonald's because the company does not serve people -people who experience vision problems through the drive through the lane. Since the drive through the lane is sometimes the only method of ordering food once the dining room is closed, this creates a situation where people who are legally blind, and unable to operate a motor vehicle can not order food from a restaurant while others are able to do so.
src: www.latimes.com
See also
- Burger King legal issues
src: jodatlawgroup.com
References
src: hbr.org
External links
- Coverage by The Economic Times
- Official McDonald's worldwide website
- McSpotlight, an anti-McDonald site, which covers a wide range of legal cases. Mainly contains old information until 2005.
- McDonald's in the news - a broad list of links to news articles about McDonald's, including legal case coverage, from websites intended for corporate franchisees.
- Stella Liebeck McDonald's Coffee Hot Case FAQ in Abnormal Use
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments