Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wolfhunter107]

Sure, but this entire decision looks really fishy on the part of the EU. It looks very much like they're deliberately trying to keep Wendy's out of the EU, and using any excuse they can do get that ruling.

Dunno. It wasn't the EU that objected against Wendy's coming to Europe. It was the guy owning the snackbar in Goes (which he named after his daughter Wendy). The EU has no record of objecting to any chain settling here. In fact 2017 so far has seen more US fastfood chains settle in the Netherlands than any year before.
Dunkin' Donuts, Pizzahut, Taco Bell, Five Guys and TGI Friday have all recently opened shop in the Netherlands, or are about do so in the coming months.

Don't think there's anything fishy, think the guy with the snackbar just has a case. The snackbar is fishy though, it's a fish and chips.

I stand corrected, then. Still think it's a bit ridiculous that a guy with two snackbars can prevent Wendy's from opening any restaurants at all in the entire EU.

[Criptfeind]

I guess it's fair enough though if he's registered in the whole thing. Otherwise you'd get a potential case where the snackbar can't expand further into the EU because of American Wendy's even though he's registered there before them which wouldn't be fair either. So, there's not a good solution, so might as well go first come first served? Idk. It's tough.

[Yoink]

Was just reunited with the bulk of my tape collection
Now I just need to figure out a way to safely pack them into my luggage and take them home with me to my new place...

[Reelya]

Sure, but this entire decision looks really fishy on the part of the EU. It looks very much like they're deliberately trying to keep Wendy's out of the EU, and using any excuse they can do get that ruling.

They can call it anything they want and open shops, they just can't trademark a name that's already trademarked in that economic zone, and EU counts as one jurisdiction.

There are zillions of mcdonalds, subway, pizza hut etc, they even let them try and open Taco Bells in Europe. They seriously couldn't give a fuck. Just name it something else.

Mendy's.

Then they can open it. But the company isn't willing to budge on the name. Plenty of other companies just suck it up and change the name in different jurisdictions if they can't trademark their usual name. If the food's any good it should speak for itself, it shouldn't need name recognition.

[Eric Blank]

...Taco Bell...

And now you, too, can know true terror on the toilet.

[wierd]

No, that's Chipotle.
http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Diet-And-Fitness/chipotle-outbreak-coli-food/2015/11/01/id/700030/

[Yoink]

I imagine if I owned a business I'd be rather pissed if we were kept from using our name by some fuck with a snack bar.

[wierd]

It's not a matter of how pissed they are, NOR about how rich they are.

he owns the regional trademark. It's the law.

[Egan_BW]

I imagine if I owned a business I'd be rather pissed if we were kept from using our name by some fuck with a snack bar.

I imagine if I owned a business I'd be the fuck with a snack bar, so I don't mind this ruling much.

[Rolan7]

It's not a matter of how pissed they are, NOR about how rich they are.

he owns the regional trademark. It's the law.

Interesting that you're suddenly a legal literalist. 

Anyway, the "region" is the entire EU, wherein he has 2 locations and registered relatively recently.  Seems like a grey area to me, but I hope it's true that Wendy's could do business under a modified name.  If so, they should do that.  Like Reelya said:

Sure, but this entire decision looks really fishy on the part of the EU. It looks very much like they're deliberately trying to keep Wendy's out of the EU, and using any excuse they can do get that ruling.

They can call it anything they want and open shops, they just can't trademark a name that's already trademarked in that economic zone, and EU counts as one jurisdiction.

There are zillions of mcdonalds, subway, pizza hut etc, they even let them try and open Taco Bells in Europe. They seriously couldn't give a fuck. Just name it something else.

Mendy's.

Then they can open it. But the company isn't willing to budge on the name. Plenty of other companies just suck it up and change the name in different jurisdictions if they can't trademark their usual name. If the food's any good it should speak for itself, it shouldn't need name recognition.

Except, trademark law is pretty murky...  Look at all the cases McDonalds has pursued:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_legal_cases#MacDonald.27s_.28UK_-_Cayman_Islands.29
They didn't win a lot of those, which is why I say murky.  Notice that they were even permanently banned from Grand Cayman, despite the competition being "MacDonald's Family Restaurant".  They were wrong to sue, and the penalty seems just as wrong to me.

Anyway, it's not a given that Wendy's is a minor edit away from entering the market.  It's, surprise, complicated.

[wierd]

The alternative to not being a stickler about the law is that a big group, like Wendy's Intl. manages to oust a family operation, then promptly sues the family operation for mark infringment, because trade dress is covered under trademark, and they are legally required to try to protect it.

So, unless you *Just LOOOOVE* big huge megacorps giving it hard up the ass of small businesses, you need to be a stickler about literal law, and not give the inch. 

The *BEST* solution is for Wendy's Intl to LICENSE the mark from the small business, then operate legally, and properly.

(See what Motoroloa did with 'Droid' and Lucas Films ltd. when they first marketed the phone.)

[Rolan7]

Prior use is protected under trademark law, as it should be.  Not even sure what ousting means in that scenario.

I was referring to your creative and somewhat antagonistic interpretation of the first amendment, recently.  Though that was in other threads.

[wierd]

Look at it another way Rolan-  That small business owns very valuable intellectual property-- namely, that mark.  Arguably, that mark is worth more than their whole restaurant chain is.

By just handing that mark to Wendy's Intl, because Wendy's Intl happens to be super duper huge, and greased a bunch of MPs up like they were christmas geese with fat lobbying efforts, the legal system is defrauding those people of that valuable property.

The proper thing for the courts to decide is that the proper holder, remains the proper holder.

Wendy's Intl can license that mark like any other business wanting to enter a market with an incumbant mark holder, and stop being entitled bitches about it.

[Rolan7]

Moving into a market with an existing trademark like that seems tricky.  Seems to me like the little guy in the EU is technically in the right.  Though surely something like "American Wendy's" wouldn't be confused with such a small fry (heh)

Seems like a grey area to me, but I hope it's true that Wendy's could do business under a modified name.  If so, they should do that.

I'm specifically not saying Wendy's ought to get its way, even though I'm sure it has more brand recognition even in the EU.  I'm merely saying they deserve a route to do business, that it's complicated, and also being a bit snide at you (sorry, heh.  No actual offense meant, I'm just trying to be assertive).

[Yoink]

It's not a matter of how pissed they are, NOR about how rich they are.

he owns the regional trademark. It's the law.

I wasn't disputing that (in fact I'm glad to see a big company losing out here), just saying that if I owned/managed a business of pretty much any kind, with even a tiny amount of pride in my job, I would find the idea of having to pick some other name for a new branch/outlet extremely distasteful and do everything in my power to avoid that outcome.