Burger King trades as Hungry Jack's in Australia because, by widely published accounts, an Adelaide takeaway already held the Burger King name there when the US chain arrived in the early 1970s. Its franchisee, Jack Cowin, picked another name instead. In Nepal, the first-to-file principle generally applies, so the same trap is open here.
Key takeaways
- Fame abroad gives no automatic right in a new country; an earlier local owner can block it.
- The 2001 Australian court case was a franchise contract dispute, not a trademark fight.
- Today both names in Australia stand in the franchisor's name, not the franchisee's.
- Burger King has 10 marks published in Nepal's Industrial Property Bulletin; Hungry Jack has none.
- In Nepal, title comes from registration with the Department of Industry (Sec. 16).
- A published mark can be opposed within 90 days of its Bulletin publication.
Why is Burger King called Hungry Jack's in Australia?
When Burger King looked at Australia, the name was not free. Published accounts agree that an Adelaide business was already trading as Burger King and held rights in it.
So the stores opened under another name. The New South Wales Court of Appeal later put it plainly: the franchisee "used its own name Hungry Jack's" rather than the Burger King brand, while the system and trademarks behind it were Burger King's.
Who was the Adelaide Burger King?
The usual account names Don Dervan, an American-born businessman who opened a Burger King drive-in in Adelaide in 1962. Reports say his chain grew to about 17 restaurants and that he would sell stores but not the name. Details such as the suburb differ between sources.
IP Australia's register is patchy for that period: several early "BURGER KING" entries appear as incomplete records with no owner. One device mark, filed on 9 September 1968, now stands in Burger King Corporation's name and has lapsed for an unpaid renewal fee.
Where did the name Hungry Jack's come from?
Jack Cowin, the Canadian-born founder of Hungry Jack's, is said to have picked from names the Burger King group already owned. "Hungry Jack" was a pancake-mix brand of Pillsbury, Burger King's parent company at the time. Adding the apostrophe and "s" made it a restaurant name.
The register supports the core of that story. IP Australia's records show a HUNGRY JACK word mark, No. 179630, filed on 9 April 1963 in Class 30 and still registered, now owned by Burger King Company LLC. The first store opened in Perth in 1971, according to most published histories.
What was the 1990s dispute actually about?
It was about contracts, not ownership of the name. The first formal franchise agreement was signed on 1 June 1973, when 14 Hungry Jack's restaurants were already trading on the Burger King system. In 1990 the parties signed four more agreements, including a Development Agreement and a Registered User's Agreement covering Hungry Jack's use of Burger King's trademarks.
The Development Agreement required at least four new restaurants a year in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. From 1993, the court found, Burger King wanted a bigger role in Australia. In 1995 it froze new third-party franchisees and withdrew financial and operational approval, which made the target hard to meet.
On 18 November 1996 Burger King served notices terminating the Development Agreement, alleging too few stores and some trademark and advertising breaches. It had also set up Burger King outlets with Shell at service stations, without Hungry Jack's. Hungry Jack's sued eight days later.
What did the Court of Appeal decide in 2001?
The trial judge, Rolfe J, found for Hungry Jack's and awarded damages of about 70.8 million Australian dollars. On appeal, Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 187, decided on 21 June 2001 by Sheller, Beazley and Stein JJA, upheld the finding of liability.
The court held that the termination notices were invalid. It found the contract carried implied terms of good faith and reasonableness, and that Burger King breached them with the franchisee freeze and withdrawn approvals. The case is still cited in Australia on good faith in commercial contracts.
What happened to the damages?
The appeal changed the money. The court cut one head of damages to nil and ordered others recalculated, lowering the trial award. Reported final amounts vary, and the judgment alone does not state one.
Who owns the two brand names in Australia today?
The franchisor does. A search of IP Australia's records on 18 October 2026 shows both BURGER KING and HUNGRY JACK'S marks registered to Burger King Company LLC, for example No. 275292 (BURGER KING, filed 1974) and No. 306796 (HUNGRY JACK'S, filed 1977).
Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd runs the restaurants, but the names sit with the brand owner. Burger King-branded outlets there were later converted to Hungry Jack's; reports put this in 2003.
Our guide to registering a trademark in Australia covers the filing route there today.
Does Burger King have trademarks in Nepal?
It has filed and published them. IP Sewa's archive holds 123 issues of the Industrial Property Bulletin, from Vol. 1 No. 1 (22 January 2006) to Vol. 20 No. 8 (16 October 2026). We searched every printed mark name and applicant for "BURGER KING" and "HUNGRY JACK", ordered by publication date.
| Bulletin | Marks as printed | NICE classes | Applicant as printed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vol. 12 No. 2, 4 July 2018 | BURGER KING & CRESCENT DESIGN (and logo), three entries | 29, 30 and 43 | Burger King Corporation, Miami |
| Vol. 20 No. 5, 8 July 2026 | BK, KING JR and HOME OF THE WHOPPER, seven entries | 29, 30 and 43 | Burger King Company LLC, Miami |
| Any issue | HUNGRY JACK or HUNGRY JACK'S | None found | None found |
That is 10 published marks from one owner, printed under two company names. The 2018 marks were filed on 4 June 2017; the 2026 marks were filed on 6 April 2023, so they waited over three years for publication.
Across the 12 latest issues by date, the median wait is about 3.5 months, but about one mark in six takes over two years. Our usual estimate for an unopposed trademark is 12–14 months, filing to certificate, and 6–8 months only in the smoothest cases.
These are published marks, not proof of registration, and say nothing about restaurants in Nepal. Our owner search lists any company's marks this way.
How crowded is the word BURGER on Nepal's register?
Burger King is not the only name to watch. The same archive holds 19 published marks with BURGER anywhere in the name, 12 of them from owners with Nepali addresses. Eleven of the 19 are in Class 43, which covers restaurant and café services.
The pace is rising: 11 of the 19 were published from January 2022 onward. The earliest Class 43 entry is AT BURGER (and logo), in Vol. 9 No. 5 of 15 October 2015. McDonald's Corporation's MCBURGER followed in Vol. 20 No. 6, published on 17 August 2026.
A word that simply names the food is usually weak on its own. The risk sits in the rest of the mark, such as a KING, a JACK or a logo.
Would the same story play out in Nepal?
Very possibly. Under the Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act 1965, a person acquires title to a trademark "upon registration" at the Department of Industry (Sec. 16(1)). Sec. 21B adds that a foreign registration is not valid in Nepal until the mark is registered here.
So the first complete application usually wins, even against a brand that is famous abroad. Nepal is outside the WIPO-run Madrid System, so a foreign owner must file directly, through a local agent appointed by a power of attorney (Sec. 20). Our page on filing in Nepal from Australia covers that route.
Can a famous brand stop an earlier local filing in Nepal?
Sometimes, but it has to act. The proviso to Sec. 18(1) bars a mark that may undermine "the reputation of the trade-mark of any other person", or that is already registered to someone else. A famous brand can rely on that ground, with evidence of its reputation in Nepal.
Timing decides the route. A mark printed in the Industrial Property Bulletin is published, not yet registered, and anyone may oppose it within 90 days of publication; act before the deadline the DoI states. Our guide to the 90-day opposition window explains the filing.
What if the other mark is already registered?
Once a mark is registered, Sec. 18(3) lets the Department cancel it if a Sec. 18(1) ground exists, after giving the holder a chance to answer. Sec. 18C also requires cancellation, after inquiry, of a mark not used within one year of registration.
How strong a reputation claim is depends on the evidence, so ask a lawyer; see also how well-known marks are treated in Nepal.
What does a franchisee in Nepal need from the brand owner?
Written permission, recorded at the Department. Sec. 21D lets an owner transfer a mark or "provide approval in writing for its use", and both parties file a joint application with the DoI. Sec. 16(2) bars anyone from using a registered mark without such a transfer or written permission.
Is a local outlet an official franchise? The register shows who owns a mark, not who holds a licence, so ask the operator for the owner's written approval before you invest.
How do you check a brand name before you launch?
Do it before you print any sign; a late discovery is expensive even for a global chain.
- Search the exact name. Run it on IP Sewa's published-trademark search, which covers the 71,500+ marks printed in DoI bulletins.
- Search look-alikes. Try other spellings, translations and sound-alikes in the trademark conflict checker.
- Pick your classes. A burger brand may need Class 43 for restaurant services and Classes 29 or 30 for packaged food, each in its own application (Sec. 18A(2)); the NICE class finder helps.
- Get a written opinion. Our trademark search and clearance team weighs similarity and reputation risks.
- File first. File each class at the DoI before launch; our trademark registration service can handle it.
- Diary the dates. After the registration certificate issues (Sec. 18(2)), the term runs seven years from registration (Sec. 18D), renewable any number of times within 35 days of each expiry (Sec. 23B).
A search here shows published marks only, not registration status or unpublished filings. Our guide on checking whether a trademark is registered covers what the DoI can confirm.
What could this look like for a Kathmandu burger brand?
This is an illustration, not a real case. A founder opens "Summit Burger" in Lalitpur and prints menus, but never files. A year later a rival with three outlets files "Summit Burger" in Class 43, and it is published in the Bulletin.
If the founder spots it in time, they can oppose within the 90 days, but proving their own reputation from one small café is hard.
Had they searched and filed first, the rival's mark would have met an earlier application instead. For how examiners compare names, see spotting a confusingly similar trademark.
Common mistakes
- Assuming fame travels. A foreign registration has no force until the mark is registered in Nepal.
- Reading the Bulletin as the register. A published mark can still be opposed or refused.
- Treating a franchise as ownership. Hungry Jack's runs the stores, yet the names sit with Burger King.
- Searching only the exact words. Similar spelling, sound or a logo can still conflict.
- Waiting for a perfect launch. The first-to-file principle rewards whoever files first.
Our McDonald's vs McCurry story shows another restaurant-name fight, and our opposition and enforcement team acts when a conflicting mark appears.
In short
By widely published accounts, Burger King is Hungry Jack's in Australia because the name was already taken locally. The 2001 case was a contract fight the franchisee won. In Nepal, file early, watch the Bulletin, and remember that fame abroad is not a right here.
People also search for
- How to register a trademark in Australia
- Well-known trademarks in Nepal
- McDonald's vs McCurry: a landmark trademark fight
- What is trademark opposition in Nepal?
The Act is on the Nepal Law Commission website, and new issues appear on the DoI's Bulletin page. To clear a name or act on a conflicting mark, contact the IP Sewa team; this article is general information, not legal advice.
Comments (0)
Leave a comment
Replying to —