San Francisco Gate recently ran an article about a restaurant that serves such simple dishes as macaroni and cheese. The owners had originally called it, "Little Mac," but were sued by MacDonalds, who said they couldn't use it. That reminded me of what happened to scale aircraft model builders who were enjoined by several companies from using the name of the company whose aircraft the modeler was replicating. Congress partially overruled them, saying that if public money financed the airplane, as in for the military, the name was public domain. Ironically, these same companies once encouraged modelers to replicate their products, and would send out free three-views for the asking.
I am left wondering whether the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment might be at issue when big businesses tell small businesses or individuals what they may say. What's prompted this seeming takeover of language?
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -J. Krishnamurti
The owners had originally called it, "Little Mac," but were sued by MacDonalds, who said they couldn't use it.
That is asking for trouble. MacDonalds are notorious for jealously guarding their trademarks. They want to stop their name from becoming a generic name for their "product". The fact that the restaurant is in the same line (food supply) as MacDonalds makes them even more likely to be contacted by their lawyers. Really, they were relying to some extent on the "Big Mac" brand to help sell the restaurant, even if it wasn't a conscious decision.
The case about the model aircraft is different. I can't see that making models of named aircraft can break any trademark law, since it's obvious that it's the name of the original plane that's being referred to, not that of the model. Really, I'd say it was a free form of advertising. Of course, if a company set itself up as, say, "Learjet Models", making models of Learjets, the situation might be a little different.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Yes, I have to agree with arnie. "Little Mac" is clearly a play on MacDonald's "Big Mac." In this instance I agree with MacDonald's. However, I do think some of these companies take things to far. There is a little tavern in Beloit, Wisconsin (small town) that was called something about Mouse (maybe even Mickey Mouse) that irritated Disney. They had to change it Mouse Tavern.
I'd have to consult my retained expert (John, who will be visiting in a few weeks) but I'm fairly certain that the Big Mac/Little Mac dispute isn't a copyright issue it's a trademark infringement issue.
And whatever the claim to the contrary they would never have suggested the "Little Mac" name if not for the existence of a product called "Big Mac". They were clearly trying to get some free publicity from association with the bigger brand.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
