McDonald's loses its case against Hungry Jack's after a court finds the Big Jack burger is not "deceptively similar" to the Big Mac, following a trial in which experts were called in to examine the products.

  • A court has ruled a Hungry Jack’s burger did not infringe on McDonald’s trademark.

  • McDonald’s argued its rival’s product could confuse consumers and eat into its profits.

  • A scientist was brought in to weigh the two-patty burgers over the three-year trial.

McDonald’s has lost its legal dispute with fast-food rival Hungry Jack’s over its Big Mac lookalike burger the “Big Jack”.

The American giant had claimed that consumers would confuse the Big Jack with the Big Mac and this would eat into McDonald’s profits.

But Justice Stephen Burley ruled against the claim in the Federal Court today.

“Big Jack is not deceptively similar to Big Mac,” Justice Burley said.

    • @Nath@aussie.zone
      4•1 year ago

      Jack in the Box is not a thing in Australia.

      In case you missed it/didn’t know: Hungry Jacks is Burger King, here.

    • ZagorathEnglish
      2•1 year ago

      To elaborate, when Burger King wanted to expand to Australia, they discovered a different company already existed with that name, so for trademark reasons they couldn’t open in Australia as Burger King. So they chose a new name here—Hungry Jacks. Most of the menu is broadly similar, as is the logo and iconography.

      • @youngalfred@lemm.ee
        2•1 year ago

        To add to this, when the trademark lapsed in the 90s, Burger King America actually opened BK branded stores here in an attempt to push out the Australian franchise holder (hungry jacks).
        BK lost the legal case, had to pay a heap of money and decided to leave Australia, transferring all the bk stores to Hungry jacks.