Folks, we have waited weeks for this moment to come around, but McDonald’s has finally kept its promise to hand Hungry Jack’s its own buns on a platter in court, with the preliminary hearing happening today. Spoiler: the judge was not fkn impressed.
Quick catch up on what we’ve had so far. Hungry Jack’s released the all too familiar-looking Big Jack burger. Then, Macca’s sued their asses on the spot, demanding complete destruction of all Big Jack property because it would deceive customers.
Hungry Jack’s then came back with a super shady ad, and then also followed up with a court defence statement which made the wild claim that the Big Jack and the Big Mac burgers are completely different in look, ingredients, taste and size.
And now we are here, the preliminary court sesh between the two massive burger companies.
Sydney barrister Edwina Whitby, who spoke on the behalf of McDonald’s, made the most excellent statement in court before Federal Court Justice Stephen Burley today.
“It is another battle of the burgers in the Federal Court, your honour,” she said.
According to Whitby, McDonald’s actually wrote Hungry Jack’s a letter that disapproved entirely of their shady add, which was written “seeking substantiation of the claim”.
According to the Brisbane Times, she also hinted at possibly adding another claim for the ad misleading viewers and being a cheeky bit of deceptive conduct towards the whole case.
I definitely would love to know what was in that little letter.
She also made clear that McDonald’s felt as if the Big Jack “fell short of acceptable commercial standards and constitutes bad faith”.
To this Justice Burley said: “It doesn’t seem like this thing is shrinking any, does it?”
It seems like the two companies are really at each other’s throats now.
Justice Burley basically shut down any claim about the burgers looking alike, calling it “clutter” before the court, and focusing the issue onto the claim that the trademarks for the two burgers are deceptively similar.
Sydney barrister Sophie Goddard, SC, spoke on behalf of Hungry Jack’s.
She essentially counter-claimed that not only does the Big Mac not have a trademark on how it looks, but that all similarities were due to “common characteristics of hamburgers.” (She has a point TBH.)
In relation to the claim that the burger name would deceive customers, she claimed that “no Australian consumer” would ever be confused “in the slightest.” I mean, it is kinda obvious which drive-thru you’re going into.
The two big burger companies will return to court at a later date for phase five of this fast feud.
