英语论文网

McDonald's Corporation v McBagel's Inc (85 Civ 7868, 10 December 1986) (refd)

McDonald Corporation referred to the mentioned case as a support to enhance the claim that using the prefix Mc or Mac as a naming convention will result confusion in the public to think that Future Enterprise's products that has the name mark of Mac is associated to McDonald.

Dispute and Resolution Mechanism:

Singapore has its own hierarchy of Courts when dealing with Criminal and Civil Law. (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 5 for the diagram of Singapore's hierarchy of Courts)

Singapore Law system is very strict and serious to trade mark offences, it has imposed a fine of up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of 5 years for criminal liability in infringement act. For civil infringement, the court can award statutory damages of up to $1million. Usually, the High Court in the hierarchy of Singapore Court system will deal with intellectual property disputes and infringement.

Referring to the Case Study, the case is dealt in High Court but due to appeal, the case is later brought into the Court of Appeal in resolving the case.

Laws and their relevancy to the case

Relevant laws and their application:

Under s12(1) of the Act - that the respondent's claim to proprietorship of the three marks was not made in good faith as it had copied the common distinctive prefix of the appellant's family of marks, namely, Mc;

Under s15 of the Act - that the registration of the three marks would likely deceive or cause confusion to the public; and Under s23(1) of the Act - that the application marks were identical with or nearly resembled the trade marks belonging to the appellant.

Fairness and unfairness:

First case: (Refer to appendices Section B, B: 1 for Scenario of first case)

It was decided in the first case that McDonald was unable to stop Future Enterprise form producing their products due to infringements of trademarks. I believed that the decision was fair as many evidence was provided to prove that Future Enterprise had made an effort to make their products distinctive to prevent confusion to the public.

The evidence, from the article says that the products Future Enterprise produced were packaged with an eagle logo and it was sold mainly at NTUC FairPrice and Mustafa supermarkets in Singapore. This evidence enhances the point that Future Enterprise and McDonald were selling products targeted at different audiences from different markets.

Furthermore, the article also showed that Future Enterprise has had its own product logos and color schemes different from McDonald. This point further showed that the marks were different whether it is in the aspects of appearance, sound or concept. Thus, it proves that customers/consumers had more ways to differentiate between the prod本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。