• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Call us now  07 4688 2188

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Clifford Gouldson Lawyers

  • About
    • Our Origin Story
    • Our Future
    • Toowoomba
    • Brisbane
    • Sunshine Coast
    • What our clients say!
  • Careers
  • Supporting our Community
    • Bringing art to the business world
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • About
    • Our Origin Story
    • Our Future
    • Toowoomba
    • Brisbane
    • Sunshine Coast
    • What our clients say!
  • Careers
  • Supporting our Community
    • Bringing art to the business world
  • Contact Us
  • Search

Mobile Menu

  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Knowledge
  • Events
  • Industries
  • For Individuals
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Knowledge
  • Events
  • Industries
  • For Individuals

The Battle of the Big Burgers: McDonald’s v Hungry Jack’s

You are here: Home / CGLaw / The Battle of the Big Burgers: McDonald’s v Hungry Jack’s

In a battle between two fast-food giants, some key takeaways for businesses are apparent.

The litigation between Mcdonald’s and Hungry Jack’s was, as described by Justice Burley in paragraph one of his judgement, “a dispute about trade marks, misleading or deceptive conduct and hamburgers.”

The dispute arose in response to Hungry Jacks’ menu changes, and an associated marketing campaign relating to the Big Jack and Mega Jack burgers.

In relation to trade marks, McDonald’s claimed that these names respectively infringed its BIG MAC and MEGA MAC trade marks because they were deceptively similar. As such, McDonald’s contended that Hungry Jack’s own trade mark registration ought to be cancelled. On this issue, the court found in favour of Hungry Jack’s.

As it related to the misleading and deceptive conduct contention, McDonald’s took aim at the Hungry Jack’s associated ad campaign, specifically, the claims that the Big Jack had “25% more Aussie beef” than the Big Mac. Hungry Jack’s provided evidence that their uncooked burger patties were, in fact, 25% greater, but the court ultimately held that Hungry Jack’s had breached the Australian Consumer Law since the cooked weight of beef in each respective burger was differentiated by approximately 12 – 15%.

The Trade Mark Battle

Justice Burley found that there was no trade mark infringement since BIG JACK and MEGA JACK were not deceptively similar to BIG MAC and MEGA MAC.

The judgement, written by one of Australia’s most experienced intellectual property barristers before becoming a Judge, provided a greater clarification of the requirements of ‘deceptive similarity’ under section 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act. The law around deceptive similarity includes an important High Court decision involving the original owner of CG Law’s historical Toowoomba Office, Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd [1959] 71 CLR 592. In that case, Justice Kitto stated that for deceptive similarity to be proven:

“there must be a real, tangible danger of its occurring… it is sufficient if the result of the use of the mark will be that a number of persons will be caused to wonder whether it might not be the case that the two products come from the same source”

Justice Burley also considered the very recent High Court decision, Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v Allergan Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] HCA 8. In that case the Court held that, when assessing deceptive similarity under s 120 of the Trade Marks Act, reputation of the registered trade mark and that of its owner is not relevant. Importantly, this means that deceptive similarity must be considered from the perspective of a hypothetical consumer who did not bring preconceptions based on their prior experience with McDonald’s or Hungry Jack’s,

“Each mark must be considered afresh, shorn of knowledge of the reputation of both. There is, of course, a degree of artificiality in the approach, but that is for the good reasons set out in the case law.”[1]

Justice Burley, considering each company’s trade marks free of surrounding branding, made a range of observations about the merely descriptive nature of the word ‘big’ and the phonetic and semantic differences between ‘Mac’ and ‘Jack’, concluding

“Allowing for imperfect recollection, I do not think it likely that the typical consumers will confuse JACK for MAC or BIG JACK for BIG MAC or be caused to wonder whether hamburger products sold under and by reference to BIG JACK come from the same source or are affiliated with the trader who sells the BIG MAC.”[2]

His Honour found that BIG MAC and BIG JACK were not deceptively similar and reached the same conclusion in relation to the MEGA MAC and MEGA JACK marks. Accordingly, the BIG JACK and MEGA JACK marks were valid and should not be removed from the Register.

The Misleading & Deceptive Conduct Battle

Under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), section 18 requires that a business must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

The provision has been interpreted and applied widely, but the issue before the court in this matter was quite narrow, namely, whether Hungry Jack’s representation that the Big Jack “contained 25% more Aussie beef than the Big Mac” represented to consumers that the Big Jack contained 25% more beef by cooked weight or uncooked weight. If uncooked, the representation was true, however, if a consumer would consider this referred to cooked weight, then the evidence suggested that the 25% representation would be misleading since the difference in the patties was in fact much less after cooking.

Hungry Jack’s argued that it is common practice to sell meat by reference to its uncooked weight, such as purchasing steak at a restaurant, or meat from a butcher.

However, Burley J found in favour of McDonald’s on this point, that a stronger interpretation was that the 25% bigger claim related to the cooked weight of the burger, not the uncooked weight. His Honour cited various factors, including:

  • that a viewer is unlikely to pay close attention to every aspect of the advertisement, but will form a general impression of its message;
  • that the advertisements showed the beef in question towards the end of its cooking time and an image of the burger ready to eat such that a consumer is likely to assume the advertisement was referring to cooked meat;
  • the style of ordering from a fast food menu should be distinguished from a consumer’s consideration of an a la carte menu; and
  • many of the menus in evidence, including an advertisement by McDonald’s for its Quarter Pounder, noted that the weight was pre-cooked weight.

Takeaways for Business

Trade marks must be assessed without considering any reputation in either mark, or any other surrounding branding or collateral that is used in relation to the products bearing the trade marks.

With Toowoomba’s only Registered Trade Marks Attorney and dedicated Intellectual Property Law team within a law firm, our IP team are perfectly placed to guide local businesses on how to best secure registered trade mark and other IP rights, and commercialise those rights for profit.


[1] [94]

[2] [105]


For further information please contact Ben Gouldson

Previous Post: « Closing loopholes as we close out 2023
Next Post: Apple Grinched at Christmas! »

Primary Sidebar

We can help

Ben Gouldson

Managing Director and Trade Marks Attorney*

Amanda Tolson

Director

Sheelagh Gray

Section Head - Wills, Estates, Planning + Structuring

Brian Conrick

Senior Consultant

Michelle Broome

Lawyer

Melanie Sharpe

Lawyer

Nicola Hayden

Lawyer and Trade Marks Attorney*

Brooke Giblin

Legal Secretary & Personal Assistant

Related Alerts

April 9, 2025
Yes, crypto currency is personal property!

The legal system has taken some time to come to grips with crypto currency,...

Privacy & AI: How much does your AI know?

There have been a number of changes to Australia’s privacy laws recently and businesses...

March 5, 2025
Recent Decision on Copyright Infringement: a Puff Piece

In December 2024, the Federal Court of Australia handed down a judgment on a...

View other alerts

Footer

Clifford Gouldson Lawyers

CLIFFORD GOULDSON LAWYERS
P: 07 4688 2188
F: 07 4688 2199
mail@cglaw.com.au
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Locations

TOOWOOMBA (Head Office)
259 Ruthven Street,
Toowoomba Q 4350

PO Box 8208,
Toowoomba South Q 4350

Toowoomba Office

BRISBANE
Level 5, 231 George Street,
Brisbane Q 4000

PO Box 12802 George Street,
Brisbane Q 4003

Brisbane Office

 

SUNSHINE COAST
Regatta Corporate Building, Office 3,
Ground Floor, Innovation Parkway,
Birtinya Q 4575

Locked Bag 5010
Caloundra DC Q 4551

Sunshine Coast Office

Practice Areas

  • Property + Business Transactions
  • Workplace
  • Litigation + Dispute Resolution
  • Intellectual Property + Technology
  • Wills, Estates, Planning + Structuring
  • Business + Corporate Advisory
  • Construction
  • Privacy & Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use

Site Footer

CG Law (Trading) Pty Ltd ACN 143 426 028 t/a Clifford Gouldson Lawyers ABN 89 143 426 028 Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation.

The contents of this website are provided solely for general information purposes and do not constitute legal or other professional advice. Clifford Gouldson Lawyers expressly disclaims any liability arising from the use or reliance on the information provided. If you require legal or other expert advice or assistance, then you should seek our help or the services of a qualified professional.

Copyright © 2025 Clifford Gouldson Lawyers · Privacy & Disclaimer · Terms of Use · Marketing by John Gray Marketing · Site by Kingfisher