McDonald's Corporation v Macri Fruit Distributors Pty Ltd

McDonald's Corporation (the applicant) sought to register a trade mark consisting of the word "Mc" followed by a fruit-related word, such as "McFruit", in relation to various goods and services. Macri Fruit Distributors Pty Ltd (the objector) opposed the registration, arguing that the proposed mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion with its own registered trade marks, which also incorporated the prefix "Mc" in relation to fruit and fruit products. The matter came before the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's proposed trade mark was capable of being registered under the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), specifically in light of the opposition lodged by Macri Fruit Distributors. This involved determining whether the proposed mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers, given the existence of Macri's prior registered marks. A further consideration was the relationship between goods and services specified in the trade mark applications, particularly where some specifications fell within Class 42 services.

The Court considered the principles of trade mark law concerning deceptive or confusing marks, including the "imperfect recollection" test and the overall commercial impression of the marks. It examined the similarities and differences between the applicant's proposed marks and the objector's registered marks, taking into account the nature of the goods and services offered by both parties. The Court also had regard to the fact that the prefix "Mc" had become strongly associated with McDonald's own brand, and whether this association would extend to the applicant's proposed marks in a way that would cause confusion with the objector's fruit-related business. The Court noted that for one trade mark, the goods claimed were closely related to services of another mark.

The Court ultimately found that the applicant's proposed trade marks were not likely to deceive or cause confusion with the objector's registered trade marks. The Court ordered that the opposition be dismissed and that the trade marks be registered.