<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Malaysia: McDonald’s vs McCurry</title>
	<atom:link href="http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/09/10/malaysia-mcdonald%e2%80%99s-vs-mccurry/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/09/10/malaysia-mcdonald%e2%80%99s-vs-mccurry/</link>
	<description>The world is talking. Are you listening?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 14:55:52 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Baron</title>
		<link>http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/09/10/malaysia-mcdonald%e2%80%99s-vs-mccurry/comment-page-1/#comment-1581805</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Baron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=95433#comment-1581805</guid>
		<description>The recent McDonald&#039;s v. McCurry ruling is not surprising. Just by the three main DuPont factors alone, appearance, sound and meaning, these two marks are arguably not confusingly similar. Add to that the difference in menus, and the difference in trade dress, and you have a pretty strong case for McCurry, which the panel seemingly accepted. The letters &quot;Mc&quot; cannot be totally, exclusively owned by one entity worldwide.  And it&#039;s not as if people are going to mix up McCurry with McDonalds.  Now, if McCurry used the golden arches, had a clown and similar characters associated with the restaurant, that would be problematic.  Those elements were not present in this case. On our site, http://www.trademarksprotected.com, we help with these trademark issues and any trademark questions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The recent McDonald&#8217;s v. McCurry ruling is not surprising. Just by the three main DuPont factors alone, appearance, sound and meaning, these two marks are arguably not confusingly similar. Add to that the difference in menus, and the difference in trade dress, and you have a pretty strong case for McCurry, which the panel seemingly accepted. The letters &#8220;Mc&#8221; cannot be totally, exclusively owned by one entity worldwide.  And it&#8217;s not as if people are going to mix up McCurry with McDonalds.  Now, if McCurry used the golden arches, had a clown and similar characters associated with the restaurant, that would be problematic.  Those elements were not present in this case. On our site, <a href="http://www.trademarksprotected.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.trademarksprotected.com</a>, we help with these trademark issues and any trademark questions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Allan Shaw</title>
		<link>http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/09/10/malaysia-mcdonald%e2%80%99s-vs-mccurry/comment-page-1/#comment-1579500</link>
		<dc:creator>Allan Shaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:50:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=95433#comment-1579500</guid>
		<description>I wonder whether  the clan chief of the historic McDonalds on Scotland should sue the upstart McDonald&#039;s. I suspect that would  put an end to the bullying by the burger barons.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder whether  the clan chief of the historic McDonalds on Scotland should sue the upstart McDonald&#8217;s. I suspect that would  put an end to the bullying by the burger barons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roy Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/09/10/malaysia-mcdonald%e2%80%99s-vs-mccurry/comment-page-1/#comment-1579487</link>
		<dc:creator>Roy Greenfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:18:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=95433#comment-1579487</guid>
		<description>Now McDonald&#039;s can add that McChicken Curry sandwich to the menu with no problem...  ;^)

The funniest part is the block letters on the McCurry sign - very similar kind of font to McDonald&#039;s. Now all they need is the tally under their sign, for how many meals served...    ;^)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now McDonald&#8217;s can add that McChicken Curry sandwich to the menu with no problem&#8230;  ;^)</p>
<p>The funniest part is the block letters on the McCurry sign &#8211; very similar kind of font to McDonald&#8217;s. Now all they need is the tally under their sign, for how many meals served&#8230;    ;^)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David W</title>
		<link>http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/09/10/malaysia-mcdonald%e2%80%99s-vs-mccurry/comment-page-1/#comment-1579484</link>
		<dc:creator>David W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:43:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=95433#comment-1579484</guid>
		<description>well - McDonald&#039;s may wish to claim sovereign ownership over all Scottish named establishments but that&#039;s just American arrogance . The Scottish were in Malaysia long before the U.S. was more than 13 colonies. McCurry may be new but Scottish heritage is shared by all the Port cities of the world.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well &#8211; McDonald&#8217;s may wish to claim sovereign ownership over all Scottish named establishments but that&#8217;s just American arrogance . The Scottish were in Malaysia long before the U.S. was more than 13 colonies. McCurry may be new but Scottish heritage is shared by all the Port cities of the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

