McDonald’s Australia has lost its long-running court case against Hungry Jack’s after Macca’s claimed its rival had copied its famous Big Mac burger.
Back in 2020 (read B&T’s original reporting HERE), Hungry Jack’s released its limited edition Big Jack burger that not only sounded very similar to a McDonald’s Big Mac but looked surprisingly similar too.
McDonald’s Asia Pacific took the matter to court, arguing its trademark had been infringed and was “substantially identical … or deceptively similar”.
According to court documents, Macca’s was primarily upset about the similarity of the names but also argued that Hungry Jack’s “deliberately copied” the ingredients and appearance of the Big Mac.
As per a report in today’s Sydney Morning Herald, the judge presiding of the three-year battle, Justice Stephen Burley of the Federal Court, described the similarities between the two burgers as “clutter”. He also concluded that “Big Jack is not deceptively similar to Big Mac”.
“As a consequence, McDonald’s has not established that the impugned use of the Hungry Jack’s trademarks infringes its registered trademarks,” Burley said.
However, it wasn’t all good news for Hungry Jack’s. The judge said the fast food purveyor had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by claiming in TV ads at the time that its Big Jack contained “25 per cent more Aussie beef”.
As soon as Macca’s launched its legal action in 2020, Hungry Jack’s countered with an ad that said “someone’s suing Hungry Jack’s” but the Big Jack was “clearly bigger” than “some American burger” and had “25 per cent more Aussie beef”. Justice Burley deemed the claims in the ad to be untrue.
McDonald’s’ lawyers had asked the court to make orders restraining Hungry Jack’s from using the trademarks or any others “substantially identical or deceptively similar” to McDonald’s own trademarks. Lawyers also asked for the Big Jack trademark to be cancelled.
