Supermac’s defeats McDonald’s before the UKIPO, while the EUIPO reaches the opposite conclusion

The long-running trade mark dispute between Irish fast-food chain Supermac’s (Holdings) Ltd and US company McDonald’s International Property Company, Ltd has produced contrasting results in the European Union and the United Kingdom. On 30 June 2026, in case R1216/2025‑5, the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) confirmed the refusal of the SUPERMAC’S EU trade mark application because of a likelihood of confusion with BIG MAC. One month later, in case O/0686/26, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) reached the opposite conclusion and rejected McDonald’s opposition to the registration of the SUPERMAC’S word and figurative marks in the UK.

On 17 May 2016, Supermac’s applied for the EU word mark SUPERMAC’S (EUTM application no. 015442023), covering restaurant and fast-food services in Class 43. McDonald’s opposed the application under Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation, which cover likelihood of confusion and the protection of earlier marks with a reputation. It relied, among other rights, on BIG MAC (EUTM no. 000062638), registered for goods including meat sandwiches in Class 30.

The Fifth Board of Appeal considered that English- and German-speaking consumers would break SUPERMAC’S down into “SUPER” and “MAC”. It regarded “SUPER” and “BIG” as laudatory and non-distinctive, while “MAC” retained an independent and distinctive role in both signs. The Board therefore found the marks visually and aurally similar to a below-average degree and conceptually similar to at least an average degree. It also found that BIG MAC had acquired enhanced distinctive character for meat sandwiches through intensive use and recognition in the EU.

Although meat sandwiches in Class 30 and restaurant services in Class 43 were only similar to a low degree, the Board considered that this was offset by the similarity between the signs and the enhanced distinctiveness of BIG MAC. Consumers could therefore perceive SUPERMAC’S as a sub-brand or variant of BIG MAC, giving rise to a likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR. A corresponding figurative SUPERMAC’S application was also refused in a parallel decision.

Supermac’s relied on the coexistence of the two businesses in Ireland over several decades without evidence of actual confusion. The Board rejected this argument because coexistence in a single Member State was insufficient to demonstrate peaceful coexistence throughout the EU. On 7 August 2026, Supermac’s founder Pat McDonagh said that the company was considering a further appeal against the EUIPO decision. If pursued, the challenge would be brought before the General Court of the European Union.

The UK proceedings produced a different result. On 14 April 2021, Supermac’s applied to register the word mark SUPERMAC’S (UK trade mark application no. 3626047) and a figurative version (UK trade mark application no. 3626061). Both covered Class 43 services, including restaurant and fast-food restaurant services, takeaway services and snack bars. McDonald’s opposed the applications under sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) and 5(4)(a) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994, covering likelihood of confusion, the protection of marks with a reputation and passing off. It relied on earlier rights including BIG MAC, McDONALD’S, McCAFE and GRAND BIG MAC.

The UKIPO accepted that McDONALD’S, McCAFE and BIG MAC had acquired a high degree of enhanced distinctive character through their use in the UK. However, this was not sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion. The Hearing Officer found only low or very low visual similarity between SUPERMAC’S and the McDONALD’S and McCAFE marks. The similarity with BIG MAC and GRAND BIG MAC was greater, but the differences between the signs remained sufficient to distinguish them.

McDonald’s also argued that its use of “Mc” and “MAC” had created a family of marks and that consumers could perceive SUPERMAC’S as belonging to the same commercial family. The UKIPO disagreed. It distinguished between marks using “Mc” as a prefix, such as McDONALD’S and McCAFE, and those using “MAC”, such as BIG MAC and GRAND BIG MAC. It found that neither group contained enough qualifying marks to establish the claimed family of marks.

The Hearing Officer therefore found no likelihood of direct or indirect confusion. Although SUPERMAC’S might bring BIG MAC to mind because of the shared “MAC” element, this amounted to association rather than confusion as to commercial origin. McDonald’s claims based on the reputation of its earlier marks and passing off also failed. On 31 July 2026, the UKIPO dismissed the opposition in its entirety and allowed both applications to proceed towards registration, subject to any appeal.

The contrast between the decisions lies largely in how each office assessed the shared “MAC” element. The EUIPO gave greater weight to its distinctive role within the signs and to the enhanced distinctiveness of BIG MAC. The UKIPO considered the differences between the marks sufficient to prevent consumers from assuming a commercial connection.