McD’s lawyers screwed up, not submitting required evidence of actual use in years 2011-2016. They printed out webpages with promo materials and a wikipedia page (as article correctly points, “duh, we are McDonalds”) - not a great proof of anything for any court. Then submitted some packaging of the product.
Not any evidence that the product was actually sold and trademark used in those five years - no sales figures, website traffic stats… As said, makes sense to me
Edit: that said, still makes no sense why were they challenging the use of Big Mac in the first place… shrugs
McD’s lawyers screwed up, not submitting required evidence of actual use in years 2011-2016. They printed out webpages with promo materials and a wikipedia page (as article correctly points, “duh, we are McDonalds”) - not a great proof of anything for any court. Then submitted some packaging of the product.
Not any evidence that the product was actually sold and trademark used in those five years - no sales figures, website traffic stats… As said, makes sense to me
Edit: that said, still makes no sense why were they challenging the use of Big Mac in the first place… shrugs