McDonald's loses its case against Hungry Jack's after a court finds the Big Jack burger is not "deceptively similar" to the Big Mac, following a trial in which experts were called in to examine the products.

  • A court has ruled a Hungry Jack’s burger did not infringe on McDonald’s trademark.

  • McDonald’s argued its rival’s product could confuse consumers and eat into its profits.

  • A scientist was brought in to weigh the two-patty burgers over the three-year trial.

McDonald’s has lost its legal dispute with fast-food rival Hungry Jack’s over its Big Mac lookalike burger the “Big Jack”.

The American giant had claimed that consumers would confuse the Big Jack with the Big Mac and this would eat into McDonald’s profits.

But Justice Stephen Burley ruled against the claim in the Federal Court today.

“Big Jack is not deceptively similar to Big Mac,” Justice Burley said.

  • stifle867@programming.dev
    35·
    1 year ago

    It was obviously designed to play on the whole “Big Mac” brand but to say it’s deceptively similar and would lead consumers to mistaking it for the “Big Mac” was just insane. Everyone knows you get a Big Mac at Maccas only, and if it’s not Maccas it’s not a Big Mac.

  • TheHolm@aussie.zone
    8·
    1 year ago

    they have “Big Mac” i have “Big Mic”. Same shit but with pain bread.

    I do not remember from what movie is it.

      • CalamityJoe@aussie.zone
        7·
        1 year ago

        That’s the one.

        “See, they are McDonald’s, I’m McDowells… They got the golden arches, mine is the golden arcs.They got the Big Mac. I got the Big Mick… But they use a sesame seed bun. My buns have no seeds.”

  • No1@aussie.zone
    4·
    1 year ago

    I was a fan of the Mega Jack. It was a proper feed, and fought against the continuous shrinking sizes. Have one for lunch and didn’t need to eat for the rest of the day lol.

    Hope they bring it back now they’ve won the case.

    • Nath@aussie.zone
      4·
      1 year ago

      Jack in the Box is not a thing in Australia.

      In case you missed it/didn’t know: Hungry Jacks is Burger King, here.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      To elaborate, when Burger King wanted to expand to Australia, they discovered a different company already existed with that name, so for trademark reasons they couldn’t open in Australia as Burger King. So they chose a new name here—Hungry Jacks. Most of the menu is broadly similar, as is the logo and iconography.

      • youngalfred@lemm.ee
        2·
        1 year ago

        To add to this, when the trademark lapsed in the 90s, Burger King America actually opened BK branded stores here in an attempt to push out the Australian franchise holder (hungry jacks).
        BK lost the legal case, had to pay a heap of money and decided to leave Australia, transferring all the bk stores to Hungry jacks.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    But Justice Stephen Burley ruled against the claim in the Federal Court today.

    They reckon Aussies are confusing the Big Jack with some American burger," the ad says.

    McDonald’s disputed the claim, and two experts were called in during the trial to compare the two burgers – including a scientist with a PhD in analytical chemistry.

    The experts travelled around Brisbane and Melbourne weighing burgers from more than 50 Hungry Jack’s and McDonald’s stores.

    “Hungry Jack’s has engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in breach of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.”

    The battle of the burgers between McDonald’s and Hungry Jack’s lasted for more than three years in the court.

    The original article contains 479 words, the summary contains 112 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!