I’m sure you’ve heard by now that McDonald’s lost the court case against McCurry. I just glanced through the articles and I don’t claim to know 100% of the details. I think it’s something along the lines of McDonald’s claiming that McCurry is infringing on their trademark.
I’m like any other David, I love a good triumph over Goliaths. But sometimes I feel that certain Davids are merely opportunists, and when confronted they would argue that the Goliaths are major international corporations and have endless money, hence could afford to bully them. Of course there are many Goliaths who do that and should be stumped, but in some cases the Davids are no better. When it comes to McDonald’s vs McCurry, I feel that this is one of them.
1. McDonald’s first outlet in Malaysia was opened in 1982. McCurry opened its doors in 1999. That’s 17 years for McDonald’s Malaysia to brand their company, products and outlets before the owners of McCurry decided to call their restaurant as such, accompanied with a huge red signboard with white lettering.
2. McCurry is supposed to mean “Malaysian Chicken Curry”. If it wasn’t reported in the papers, I wouldn’t have known it lor. Maybe I was already imprinted, but to me ‘McCurry’ indicates fast-food curry. They could have named it MCC as a better abbreviation.
3. There are many people named McCurry but the owners are not one of them.
4. Neither are they Scottish.
5. So it’s a bit weird to pull the ‘common Scottish name’ argument when they are selling Malaysian food.
6. Malaysian chicken curry or any other traditional Malaysian food does not taste anything like Scottish food.
7. So in fact, there’s no commonality with the prefix of ‘Mc’ .
8. Which again, to me does not tell me that it stands for Malaysian Chicken.
9. McCurry’s signboard’s font and colours are disturbingly almost similar to that of McDonald’s. Can you honestly say that it’s not intentional? That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the signboard many years ago.
Maybe McDonald’s Malaysia wants to start selling rice and curries, hence the stake on McCurry. Maybe when the owners of McCurry started their restaurant, they were just taking the cheek. It’s good news for all the McDonald’s and McCurry’s of the world because they can now operate a restaurant and call it after their namesake. Plaster it against a red signboard for all they care, as a court has ruled that you can do that if you are not selling hamburgers and such. But morally speaking, I still feel that McCurry was riding on the brand/name popularity of McDonald’s. What do you think?