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.

  • 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!