Jump to content

Talk:McDonald's legal cases

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"MacJoy stated that the requirement of “actual use” in commerce in the Philippines before one may register a trademark pertains fuk this o the territorial jurisdiction on a national scale and is not merely confined to a certain locality or region. " - I can't make sense of this sentence... could somebody repair the English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.208.61 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

[edit]

I think this has the potential to be a really interesting and informative article but there is clearly a lot of work to be done.

Amongst other things, I have organised it into categories and I think it would help provide a more rounded picture if at least one 'brought by McDonald's' and one 'brought against McDonald's' example could be found for each case. The cases that are currently bullet-pointed should be researched and expanded into paragraphs that include the relevant detail; saying 'McDonald's sued a retaurant in Kingston, Jamaica is really not sufficient and is could be problematic for Wikipedia from a legal point of view.

There's no need for long essays to begin with, unless the case is particularly significant (such as McLibel, which could do with some expansion), but writing a short paragraph about each under an appropriate subheading will help people find what they are looking for. Perhaps the paragraph headings for individual cases should take the format of McDonald's vs Smith, so that people looking for a specific case can find it quickly by looking at the contents box.

There are no shortage of pictures that could be used in this article, but the challenge is in finding ones that add something to it. Everyone knows what the McDonald's logo looks like; some dramatic scenes of McDonald's representatives or their opponents coming out of court would be a lot better.

Finally, this article needs to be categorised properly. I suspect it could be put in many categories other than McDonald's - for example, law-related subjects. Gruffle Gaw 15:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

[edit]

Given its subject, it's also very important that the article is thoroughly supported by accurate and reliable sources, which need to be referenced properly. Gruffle Gaw 15:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant in Kingston, Jamaica

[edit]

I have removed the reference to McDonald's forcing a restaurant in Kingston, Jamaica to change its name in 1971 because I can't find a ref to support this that gives specifics such as defendant's name.

The only reference to this case is McSpotlight, or pages that have obviously been copied from that site. The McSpotlight site does not, as far as I'm aware, give specifics. Additionally, I am not keen to rely on it as the only source of information because it is clearly very anti-McDonald's (this has nothing to do with my personal views; I wouldn't rely on a McDonald's site as the sole source of information either).

If anyone knows where we can find imaprtial, reliable information online or otherwise, feel free to put the Jamaican restarant back in and cite the source. In the meantime, I suggest we leave it off unless and until a good source can be found. Gruffle Gaw 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish cafe owner

[edit]

I have deleted the part about the Scottish cafe owner for similar reasons after a couple of internet searches. I wondered if it was confused with McCoffee in San Fransisco, already mentioned and verified in the article. If this is a different case, please cite a reliable source. Gruffle Gaw 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real Ronald McDonald

[edit]

I searched for this online as well, and it seems the original source in Naomi Klein's book No Logo. I can't remember seeing that in the book (I've read it, but it was a long time ago).

For the moment, I've included a link to an article about the book from a newspaper web site, which references the case. This is intended to be a temporary solution - I didn't want to take the case out of the article if it looks like a reference can be found. However, it is clearly poor referencing to quote things second hand, so if anyone can look at the book and provide an accurate reference that meets Wikipedia's referencing guidelines on books, please do. More specifics are needed about this and the information on McSpotlight (which is repeated almost word for word on a few other sites) isn't neutral or sufficiently detailed. Gruffle Gaw 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mc Sleep

[edit]

I was very surprised that the Mc Sleep case was not included on the page and have added it, along with a link to a PDF detailing the court's opinion on the matter. This was a well-publicized case at the time, and basically established the principal that Mc Donald's owns the letters "Mc" when combined with another word, at least in the sphere of business.

McLibel

[edit]

Why is the section about McLibel states 2002 as the date McDonald took Dave and Helen to court? Is this correct?

Lawsuits

[edit]

Wasn't there a lawsuit where a teenage girl sued McDonald's for "making her fat" The case was eventually either thrown out or ruled in McDonald's favor (I don't remember which). I'm sure I remember people talking about this case, and even making jokes about it on late night shows. Can anybody verify this or provide more information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.244.100.209 (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]


I don't see the lawsuit filed against Apple for their "MacBook". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.208.61 (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. Pufnstuf

[edit]

Should be something about the lawsuit about McDonald's ripping off the creators of H.R. Pufnstuf (see that article, McDonaldland, etc.). AnonMoos 18:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Apparent Vandalism

[edit]

It appears that the first section of this article has been vandalized with comments that are clearly in violation of NPOV, as well as comments that have nothing to do with the page's actual content. I have removed the comments. --Antcjone 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ogborn case

[edit]

There's a lot of detail about this (far more than for the other examples). Perhaps it would be better off in an article of it's own; or just slimmed down. Astronaut 01:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone's deleted that Ogborn Case information ! Astronaut 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King case

[edit]

A glaring omission: the 1982 case they brought against BK's TV ad. It can be read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_advertising Watch the advert at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXJEdV6U1Tk Apparently they banned the actress from entering their premises until the case was settled out of court! 62.49.68.222 15:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising standards

[edit]

The entire section about the standards controversies, particularly about the issues that had allegedly arised in India and other countries, are written without regard to the non-point of view rule. Without the addition of references for the unsubstantiated claims (i.e., that McDonald's has lost the trust of Indians and religious groups), that section is going to be overhauled, with much of the information removed. Drendus (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name change

[edit]

To litigation involving McDonald's or McDonald's litigation. "Legal cases" is a rather awkward term, while I think "litigation" will capture everything this article is about. Postdlf (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King legal issues, so McDonald's legal issues. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Legal issues" seems unduly broad, if we're just dealing with legal disputes with private parties or governments (all of which can be characterized as "litigation"), and would probably invite a slew of commentary and reporting beyond just lawsuits. And I notice that Burger King legal issues has sections that aren't even genuine legal issues, such as the animal welfare and nutrition sections. "Controversies," perhaps (though I generally abhor the use of that word on here), but no invocation of any legal system from what I can see. Postdlf (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a little closer look, most if not all of the Controversies involve a legal consequence or agreement. The CIW wants a contract guaranteeing a certain wage, the Spanish government says the company is exceeding caloric guidelines of the country and violated a gentleman's agreement with the country, the CSPI sued them in California over a similar health issue, the BK location that Rikmor opened in the Occupied territories was disputed on a basis of international law and UN directives in regards to Palestine and Israel. They are all legal issues, even when there is no formal law suit. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relating to Litigation involving Tesco

[edit]

There is a related article concerning Tesco that is up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Litigation_involving_Tesco and if the contributors of this article could take look at the discussion and comment on its merits, it would be appreciated.Wikidea 22:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity Case

[edit]

Wasn't there a case in the late 90's, early 2000's involving someone suing McDonalds for making their children fat? Wasn't it basically the reason behind the Morgan Spurlock movie Super Size Me? Seems like this information would be useful here. Tjpoe (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet the standards of WP:note, case was dismissed as a waste of the court's time. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


really?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.225 (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Samuel Hirsch link points to a rabbi, not a lawyer - I'm thinking that this isn't the right person and link should be removed? NicmaLauren 14:22, 20 October 2009 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.234.44.225 (talk)

[edit]

The image Image:Viz cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McWong's in DC?

[edit]

I have heard that there was a Chinese restaurant in Washington, DC called something like "McWongs" or "McPanda." They apparently won the right to keep the name, but McDonalds muscled them out by buying the company that owned their lease, or something like that. Anybody heard of this?118.165.204.207 (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liebeck's Age

[edit]

Under heading "The McDonald's coffee case (US)" this article lists Stella Liabeck as a 79 year old woman at the time of the incident. The main article "Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants" lists her as 81 at the time of the incident. 216.221.94.148 (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on McDonald's legal cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit n kuwait

[edit]

Sorry first time using Wikipedia so I'll just add the info I can find here: 

A dentist Twitter /dr_abdoty in Kuwait was sued for making this "rot" video YouTube link /q-pP744RCiE


The issue was discussed on this internet talk show YouTube link/8O1uhJKXOeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.95.93.2 (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on McDonald's legal cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McCoffee

[edit]

The linked source ("Big Mac Versus the Little People") is sparse on details, and most other Google hits for "Elizabeth McCaughey McCoffee" repeat the same small paragraph verbatim from that source. The source itself is a press release for McSpotlight, which is not a neutral organization. What does "force" mean in this context? Was this actually a legal case (as in, was a lawsuit filed or threatened)? If not, does this even belong on this page? Is there a better source somewhere with more info, perhaps an actual newspaper article? -- Dezco62 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on McDonald's legal cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supermacs

[edit]

Irish fast food company Supermacs wanted to expand into Europe. McDonald’s hit the family-owned company with a 41-page objection against its plans to use the Supermac’s name in Europe stating that it would "take unfair advantage of the distinctive character and repute of" trademarks previous won by the global restaurant giant. There is nothing about this case in the article. [1] [2] 86.45.47.235 (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/its-mac-war-supermacs-takes-bite-back-at-mcdonalds-in-trademark-battle-35614465.html
  2. ^ https://www.thejournal.ie/mcdonalds-supermacs-wars-4008231-May2018/

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McDonalds sues MacBook and Apple

[edit]

In the future, will it be possible, If McDonalds became larger than Apple, then they sue Apple for using Mac on Macbook even if it mean Macintosh- Mcintosh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarun Kumar CS (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Scott McGee" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Scott McGee. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 5#Scott McGee until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Nardog (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonald%27s_legal_cases&oldid=1208910775"