McDonald's v McCurry was a Malaysian passing-off case that McDonald's lost. It won in the High Court in 2006, McCurry won on appeal in April 2009, and the Federal Court refused McDonald's leave to appeal that September. The Court of Appeal held that the prefix "Mc" alone gave McDonald's no monopoly.
Key takeaways
- McCurry won because its sign, menu, food and customers differed, so the court found no misrepresentation.
- The Federal Court refused leave to appeal; it did not rehear the case on the merits.
- A family of marks argument can carry more weight in registration disputes, as an EU court showed in 2016.
- McDonald's has 38 marks published in Nepal's Industrial Property Bulletin, including the bare prefix MC in Class 43.
- Nepal's Act asks about reputation and earlier registration, and a Malaysian judgment does not bind the Department of Industry.
- A published mark can be opposed within 90 days of its Bulletin publication.
What happened in McDonald's v McCurry?
McCurry Restaurant (KL) Sdn Bhd ran a small restaurant on Jalan Ipoh in Kuala Lumpur, serving Indian and Malaysian food. Its owner told reporters the name stood for "Malaysian Chicken Curry". McDonald's Corporation sued in 2001, according to press reports, claiming the "Mc" name passed McCurry off as connected with McDonald's.
On 7 September 2006 the Kuala Lumpur High Court agreed with McDonald's. Press reports say the judge treated the "Mc" prefix as McDonald's exclusive right and ordered McCurry to pay damages.
What did the Court of Appeal decide?
A three-judge bench, with Gopal Sri Ram JCA writing the judgment alongside Heliliah Mohd Yusof and Sulong Matjeraie JJCA, allowed McCurry's appeal in late April 2009. The case is reported as McCurry Restaurant (KL) Sdn Bhd v McDonald's Corporation [2009] 3 MLJ 774.
The court said the trial judge was wrong to assume McDonald's had a monopoly over "Mc". Passing off needs goodwill, a misrepresentation and damage, and case summaries record the court refusing to drop the misrepresentation element.
Choosing the name McCurry did not, by itself, show an intent to take unfair advantage of McDonald's. The question was what customers actually saw.
Why did McCurry win?
The court compared the whole get-up, meaning everything a customer actually sees, not one syllable. Case summaries describe McDonald's golden arched "M" on red against McCurry's signboard: white and grey lettering on red, a chicken giving a double thumbs-up, and the words "Malaysian Chicken Curry".
Three more facts pointed the same way. McDonald's puts "Mc" on its menu items, while McCurry used none, and McCurry sold Indian and Malaysian food, not burgers and fries.
The court also found the customers substantially different, describing McCurry's diners as mainly adults and McDonald's as popular with children. So reasonable customers were not deceived.
Case summaries add that the result could have differed had McCurry sold items named like McDonald's own, such as a "McFish".
What did the Federal Court do in September 2009?
On 8 September 2009 a Federal Court panel led by Arifin Zakaria, then Chief Judge of Malaya, with Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and James Foong, unanimously dismissed McDonald's application for leave to appeal. Press reports say the questions McDonald's posed were not properly framed; another account cites the conditions for appeals in the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
That matters because many articles call it a Federal Court ruling on the merits. It was not. The refusal simply left the Court of Appeal's reasoning standing, and McDonald's was reported to accept the outcome.
What is a family-of-marks argument?
A family of marks is a group of marks sharing one element that the public links to a single owner. McDonald's runs exactly such a family: McNUGGETS, McCHICKEN, McFLURRY, McCAFE. The argument is that "Mc" plus a food word now signals McDonald's to customers, even in a name it never used.
The Malaysian Court of Appeal did not let that argument stretch to the prefix alone. McCurry had also argued that "Mc" is a common Gaelic family-name prefix, so a monopoly over it would reach far beyond fast food.
Courts elsewhere have weighed the same family differently. In July 2016 the EU General Court upheld the invalidation of an EU MACCOFFEE registration (Case T-518/13), holding that McDonald's reputation lets it block food or drink marks that join "Mac" or "Mc" to the name of a food or drink.
Nepal's Bulletin published a MAC COFFEE (and logo) mark for the same Singapore company, Future Enterprises Pte. Ltd., in Vol. 2 No. 7 (31 March 2008), Class 30. The EU ruling has no effect on it here.
Passing off or registration: why does the route matter?
Passing off is about the real market. The claimant must prove that customers were, or were likely to be, misled by what the defendant actually did, so the sign, menu and clientele all count. McCurry's different get-up answered that claim.
A registration dispute asks a narrower question: do the two marks conflict for the goods or services listed? The EU MacCoffee case was decided that way. A July 2026 Asia IP article also reports a 2025 Malaysian High Court decision, in registration proceedings, finding an application likely to confuse with McDonald's "Mc" marks; the article does not name the parties.
What has McDonald's published in Nepal?
IP Sewa's archive holds 123 issues of the Industrial Property Bulletin, Vol. 1 No. 1 (22 January 2006) to Vol. 20 No. 8 (16 October 2026). Grouping applicant names by owner, misspellings included, McDonald's Corporation has 38 published entries across 14 issues, from Vol. 8 No. 1 (28 February 2014) to Vol. 20 No. 6 (17 August 2026).
The most recent is MCBURGER in Class 43, filed on 10 March 2026 and published in Vol. 20 No. 6. Earlier entries include McDONALD'S, the golden arches, HAPPY MEAL, BIG MAC, McNUGGETS and McFLURRY.
Twice, in Vol. 10 No. 1 (27 March 2016) and Vol. 15 No. 6 (30 September 2021), McDonald's published the bare prefix MC as a Class 43 mark.
These are published marks, not proof of registration. Our owner and applicant search lists any company's published marks.
How common is "Mc" on Nepal's register?
In the same archive, 88 published entries have a mark name beginning with the letters MC, from about 30 owners once misspelt company names are merged. McDonald's is not the largest group.
| Owner as printed | Mark family | Entries | Main NICE classes | First published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United Biscuits (UK) Limited | McVITIE'S | 21 | 30, 29 | 2008 |
| McDonald's Corporation | McCAFE, McFLURRY, MC and others | 16 | 43, 30, 29, 32 | 2014 |
| United Spirits (four applicant names) | McDOWELL'S | 11 | 33 | 2008 |
| McCain Foods Limited | McCAIN | 3 | 29, 30, 32 | 2015 |
Many of the 28 entries from owners with Nepali addresses are initials, such as MCP'S or MCU, not the Gaelic prefix at all. In Class 43, which covers restaurant and café services, all nine published marks whose name begins with MC, or with the word MAC, belong to McDonald's. No McCURRY mark appears in any issue.
Would the McCurry argument work in Nepal?
Possibly, but under different words. The Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act 1965 never uses "passing off", "confusion" or "similar".
Under Sec. 16(1) a person gains title to a trademark on registration, and Sec. 16(2) bars anyone from using a registered mark without a transfer or written permission.
The refusal test sits in the proviso to Sec. 18(1). A mark is not registered if it may undermine "the reputation of the trade-mark of any other person", or if it is already registered to someone else. Under Sec. 21B, a foreign registration has no force in Nepal until the mark is registered here.
So the Department would weigh McDonald's own published Class 43 marks and its reputation evidence. A Malaysian judgment is persuasive background at most; ask a lawyer how a reputation claim would fare. Our guide to well-known trademarks in Nepal explains that side.
How can a brand owner object to an Mc-style filing?
Timing decides the route. A mark printed in the Bulletin is published, not yet registered, and anyone may oppose it within 90 days of its publication, counting the publication day as day one. Rely on the deadline the Department of Industry states and act before the last day of the opposition period.
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 show cause. Sec. 18C also requires cancellation, after inquiry, of a mark not used within one year of registration.
Our guide to trademark opposition in Nepal covers the filing, and our opposition and enforcement team can prepare one.
How should a Nepali business choose a prefix-based name?
Ask what the prefix is doing. A real family name, or initials of your own business, is a different case from a famous prefix glued to the famous owner's own products. "Mc" plus a food word, in restaurant or food classes, is the pattern McDonald's has published most.
Distinctive names are also easier to protect. An invented word that points only to you gives an examiner nothing to compare against, while a borrowed prefix invites the comparison.
Build your own colours and sign as well: McCurry's distinct get-up is what carried it.
The guide to spotting a confusingly similar trademark sets out how names are compared.
How do you clear a prefix-based name before filing?
- Search the name and the prefix. Run both on IP Sewa's published-trademark search, which covers the 71,500+ marks printed in DoI bulletins.
- Check the big families. Look up owners who use the prefix in your classes, as the table above does for "Mc".
- Test look-alikes. Try other spellings and sound-alikes in the trademark conflict checker.
- Pick your classes. Restaurants need Class 43 and packaged food usually Class 29 or 30 under the NICE classification, 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 risk.
- File before launch. The first-to-file principle generally applies, so file each class with our trademark registration service. A foreign owner files through a local agent appointed by a power of attorney (Sec. 20).
A search here shows published marks only, not registration status or unpublished filings.
Once the registration certificate issues, the term runs seven years from registration under Sec. 18D and is renewable any number of times under Sec. 23B, within 35 days after each expiry, then six months with a fine.
What could this look like in Kathmandu?
This is an illustration, not a real case. A founder plans a noodle café called "McThukpa", with a red sign and a curved yellow letter. A search shows McDonald's own published Class 43 marks, including the bare prefix MC.
The team advises that the name and look together borrow too much. The founder keeps the menu, files a new invented name with an original logo in Class 43, and launches without a dispute waiting.
Common mistakes
- Reading McCurry as a licence. It turned on one restaurant's sign, menu and customers.
- Calling the Federal Court order a merits ruling. It refused leave to appeal.
- Checking only the exact name. A shared prefix in your class can still raise an objection.
- Copying a famous colour scheme. Get-up was McCurry's best defence; a look-alike throws it away.
- Treating the Bulletin as the register. A published mark can still be opposed or refused.
- Adding ® too early. Sec. 18B bars presenting a mark as registered before it is registered at the Department.
Burger King vs Hungry Jack's shows a different restaurant lesson, an earlier local owner; our passing-off judgments guide covers get-up generally.
In short
McCurry won in Malaysia because its sign, menu, food and customers were different, so nobody was misled; the Federal Court then refused leave to appeal. A family of "Mc" marks can still count in a registration dispute, and McDonald's has 38 marks published in Nepal. Choose a distinctive name, build your own look, and file first.
People also search for
- Burger King vs Hungry Jack's: the Australia story
- Well-known trademarks in Nepal
- How to spot a confusingly similar trademark
- How to choose the right trademark class
The Act is on the Nepal Law Commission website, and class headings are on WIPO's NICE classification 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 —