I. The Growing Complexity of Trademark Battles in India
Trademark disputes in India are no longer confined to straightforward cases of name copying or logo imitation. As Indian markets mature and brand portfolios expand, courts are increasingly being called upon to interpret nuanced doctrines of trademark law, including the "family of marks" concept. One such case that drew national and international attention recently was McDonald's Corporation v. McPatel Food & Beverages, involving the use of the prefix "Mc" by a local food business.
This legal contest wasn't just about two names beginning with similar syllables. It raised serious questions about how far a global brand's monopoly on a prefix can extend and how Indian courts are beginning to shape jurisprudence on familial trademarks—those forming a pattern within a well-known brand's portfolio.
Explore More: Intellectual Property
II. The McDonald's v. McPatel Dispute
The dispute arose when McDonald's, the American fast-food giant, filed a trademark infringement suit against McPatel Food & Beverages, a Gujarat-based QSR chain operating under the name McPatel's. The local enterprise, known for serving burgers and shakes, had adopted branding that included the "Mc" prefix and stylised menu items reminiscent of McDonald's iconic offerings. McDonald's argued that such use was likely to cause confusion, dilute its brand, and unfairly capitalise on the goodwill it had built over decades in India.
McDonald's relied heavily on its extensive "Mc" family of marks — including registrations for McChicken, McVeggie, McSpicy, McAloo Tikki Burger, McFlurry, and others. These sub-brands, while distinct, share a common root that reinforces McDonald's broader brand identity. The company asserted that this prefix had acquired distinctiveness and a secondary meaning exclusively associated with its business.
McPatel, in defence, claimed that "Mc" was not inherently distinctive and that the name "McPatel" was a legitimate fusion of the founder's surname and a common prefix used to denote Scottish roots. They argued there was no dishonest intent or attempt to pass off, and that their business catered to a different demographic with no likelihood of confusion among consumers.
The case thus pivoted on the question: Can a multinational enforce a monopoly over a prefix as generic as "Mc" in a country with its own rich linguistic diversity and business naming traditions?
III. The 'Family of Marks' Doctrine in Indian Trademark Law
The central legal issue in McDonald's v. McPatel was the application of the family of marks doctrine—a principle that allows a trademark owner to claim rights not just over individual marks, but over a series of marks sharing a common formative element. In this case, McDonald's claimed that "Mc" formed a recognisable and distinctive family mark linking all its food offerings.
While the doctrine is well-rooted in U.S. and U.K. jurisprudence, its recognition in Indian trademark law is still evolving. Indian courts have not codified a separate rule for "family of marks," but have acknowledged the concept in a handful of decisions where the common thread across marks—when backed by substantial use, advertising, and consumer association—can give rise to enforceable rights.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in assessing McDonald's claim, considered whether the "Mc" prefix, when consistently and extensively used across its registered sub-brands, had acquired a secondary meaning in the Indian market. The Hon'ble Court examined factors such as:
- The volume of sales and advertising involving the "Mc" series;
- Consumer recognition and association of "Mc" with McDonald's offerings;
- The consistency and visual uniformity in how these marks were used;
- The presence of prior legal enforcement in protecting the "Mc" family.
Ultimately, the Hon'ble Court found that McDonald's had demonstrated sufficient evidence to establish a strong connection between the "Mc" prefix and its brand identity in India, giving weight to the family of marks argument.
IV. Likelihood of Confusion and the Indian Consumer
The Hon'ble Court then turned to the core test under Indian trademark law: whether McPatel's use of the "Mc" prefix was likely to cause confusion in the minds of an average Indian consumer. Under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, infringement does not require actual confusion—it is enough if there is a likelihood of confusion or an association between the marks.
McDonald's argued that even if "McPatel" was not a direct imitation, the prefix "Mc" in the context of burgers and fast food would instinctively evoke a connection with its global brand. It pointed to visual similarities in packaging and menu offerings, as well as phonetic similarity.
The defence insisted that no rational consumer would confuse a local joint named McPatel with a multinational chain with a standardised format and global branding. They emphasised regional distinctiveness, pricing differences, and the use of local language and cultural cues to differentiate their business.
The Hon'ble Court rejected this argument, holding that Indian consumers—especially in metropolitan areas—are brand-conscious and exposed to global franchises. It noted that partial imitation of a well-known prefix, especially in the same line of business, can mislead even a reasonably discerning consumer into believing an association exists. This is particularly relevant where the prefix has acquired brand significance through consistent and widespread commercial use.
This interpretation aligned with a growing judicial recognition in India that consumer perception must be assessed in the context of urban markets and digital commerce, where brand overlap can occur subtly but powerfully.
V. Dilution, Unfair Advantage, and Bad Faith
Beyond confusion, the Hon'ble Court explored whether McPatel's use of the "Mc" prefix amounted to dilution of McDonald's trademark under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. This provision allows the owner of a well-known mark to prevent third parties from using identical or similar marks—even in unrelated goods or services—if such use takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trademark.
The Hon'ble Court found that McDonald's had attained the status of a "well-known mark" in India through decades of operation, marketing, and consumer loyalty. The unauthorised use of "Mc" in the food industry by another player, regardless of size or market share, risked tarnishing that reputation and blurring the distinctiveness of the brand.
The judges also observed indicia of bad faith in McPatel's adoption of the prefix. While the business claimed cultural and linguistic roots for the name, the Hon'ble Court was not persuaded. The overlap in product offerings, the mimicry of the "Mc" menu style, and the timing of expansion suggested an attempt to ride on McDonald's reputation.
This aspect of the judgment sends a clear message: Indian courts are increasingly sensitive to attempts by smaller entities to exploit global brand equity under the guise of local adaptation or coincidence. The threshold for proving bad faith may not require overt copying—it is enough if the cumulative circumstances point to an intention to benefit from the brand association.
VI. Implications for Indian Brands and Global Corporations
The McDonald's v. McPatel case has become a benchmark for understanding how Indian courts interpret trademark protection in the context of evolving business realities. It offers several takeaways for both Indian enterprises and multinational corporations.
For global brands, the judgment affirms that India is willing to recognise advanced doctrines like the family of marks, provided there is sufficient proof of consumer association and consistent use. It also reinforces that prefixes, when extensively commercialised and legally protected, can attain proprietary value—even if they are short or seemingly generic.
For Indian businesses, especially small or regional ventures, the ruling is a cautionary note. Courts are willing to pierce through superficial defences like cultural affinity or surname justification when the use overlaps with a known brand's field of operation. Trademark law in India is no longer tilted only in favour of the underdog—it is maturing into a balanced, rights-driven regime.
The judgment also points toward a more internationalist approach in Indian trademark litigation. By aligning itself with global standards on dilution, unfair advantage, and family of marks, Indian jurisprudence is gradually shifting toward protecting not only the direct interests of consumers but also the long-term value of brand identity.
Conclusion
The McDonald's v. McPatel decision has redefined how Indian trademark law approaches the protection of brand architecture, especially when it involves prefixes or a series of connected marks. It highlights the judiciary's willingness to protect brand ecosystems—not just standalone trademarks—when consumer association, commercial intent, and industry context support such claims.
In the long arc of Indian IP jurisprudence, the Mc prefix battle is not an isolated skirmish—it is a signal that India's courts are prepared to uphold sophisticated brand rights with clarity, consistency, and legal maturity.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
