Key Points:
- McDonald's Australia has lost its trademark court case against Hungry Jack's over the latter's Big Jack burger.
- The Federal Court dismissed McDonald's claim that the Big Jack burger infringed the company's Big Mac trademark.
- However, the judge found Hungry Jack's breached consumer law in advertising about the Big Jack's beef content.
After a costly three-year trial, Hungry Jack’s has won its Big Jack trademark battle against McDonald's.
In August 2020, McDonald's Australia launched a lawsuit against Hungry Jack’s, claiming that the fast food company's limited edition burgers - the Big Jack and Mega Jack - infringed on McDonald's trademark Big Mac due to their names.
In court, McDonald's argued that Hungry Jack's engaged in deceptive conduct and "deliberately copied" the appearance and ingredients of the Big Mac, thereby infringing on a registered trademark.
The Federal Court dismissed the allegations on Thursday.
What is trademark infringement?
A registered trademark can be infringed when a person or organisation uses a trademarked name or logo without authorisation, in a manner likely to cause confusion or deception.
At 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.
Justice Stephen Burnley, who presided over the case, found that the "Big Jack was not deceptively similar to the Big Mac", and that the Big Mac's strong reputation made it unlikely consumers would be confused or deceived.
"I am not persuaded that Hungry Jack's fashioned the name Big Jack for the purpose of misleading consumers," he said.
'More beef' claim junked
In its suit, McDonald's also claimed that Hungry Jack's had misled consumers in a series of television adverts by claiming the Big Jack contained 25 per cent more Australian beef than the Big Mac.
After testing and weighing of the different burger patties by experts, the judge found Hungry Jack's burgers contained "significantly less" than the 25 per cent additional beef advertised, and the company had breached consumer law through its marketing.
The matter will now go to a liability hearing, where Hungry Jack's could face financial penalties for its misleading marketing campaign.
