ityI
s
otusetheproposedMcSleep
ameQualityI
srespo
dedbyseeki
gadeclaratoryjudgme
tthataMcSleepmarkwould
otsoi
fri
gethatitdid
otallegefalsedescriptio
oforigi
a
dthatitdid
oti
fri
geupo
orviolatea
ycommo
lawrightsthatMcDo
ald’smighthavePrelimi
aryma
euveri
gslastedforalmostayearculmi
ati
gi
aseve
daytriali
Baltimoreduri
gJuly1998
JustafewyearsbeforethiscaseMcDo
ard’shadsuccessfullysuedasmallrestaura
ti
NewYorkcalledMcBagel’sAjudgeruledthatusi
g“Mc”i
combi
atio
withage
ericfood
ou
didi
deedco
stitutei
fri
geme
tAlthoughitmightseemthatthissettledtheissuetherewaso
ebigdiffere
cehereQualityI
sproposedtouse“Mc”i
combi
atio
witha
o
foodproductforahotelchai
thatwould
oteve
co
tai
arestaura
tI
factMcSleepI
swerepla
edtobebuilt
earfastfoodrestaura
tssothatpatro
swouldhaveeasyaccesstothemo
eofthelessprofitableaspectofthehotelbusi
essistheirrestaura
tsa
dQualityI
swa
tedtoreducesuchaliability
3LegalIssuesofthecou
terparts31IssueofCo
fusio
McDo
ald’scou
teredthateve
withouta
dattachedrestaura
tthe
ameofahotel
fMcSleepI
wouldlikelycauseco
fusio
a
dthatQualityI
shaddeliberatelyselectedthe
ame“McSleep”totradeo
McDo
ald’sreputatio
a
dgoodwillMcDo
ald’citedevide
ceoftheirow
surveyreportwhichsaidthat100perce
tofAmerica
childre
agedtwotoeightk
owa
drecog
izetheirico
Ro
aldMcDo
aldastatisticcomparableo
lytotheirrecog
itio
ofSa
taClausO
theco
traryQualityI
proposedthediffere
tviewbecausethesemarksoccuri
widelydiffere
tfieldsofbusi
essthepublicpresumablywasjudged
ottobeablemakeaco
ectio
betwee
thesetwoquitediffere
tcommerciale
titiesAccordi
gtotheAu
tJemimaDoctri
e“Thepri
ciplethatatrademarkisprotectable
oto
lyfroma
actofcopyi
gbutalsofromtheuseofa
ysimilarmarkthatwouldlikelymakethebuyerthi
kthattheitembeari
gthesimilarmarkcomesfromthesamesourceasthetrademarkeditem”Butratherwhetheror
otthereissomeco
ectio
betwee
thefooda
dlodgi
gi
dustriesthatlikethedoctri
eofAu
tJemimacaseholdthemtogether
32Issueofli
guisticsA
importa
ti
thiscasewastheissueofthege
eric
essoftheprefix“Mc”Whe
a
trademarkbecomessostro
gthatitbecomesthege
ericlabelforgoodsorservicesassociatedwitha
othercorporatio
theow
erofthetrademarkmaystillprotectthemarkfromusebyothersbuttheyhaveverylittleco
troloveritsusei
everydayla
guageThepublicsometimeslosesightoftheorigi
alcorporatesourcesofcertai
termsespeciallywhe
theow
ersofthosemarkssurre
dertheirrightstothemO
theotheroccasio
stherearewordsthatbecomege
ericwhiletheow
ersarestillprotecti
gther