In a David-versus-Goliath legal face-off, Gujarat-based snack manufacturer McPatel Foods Private Limited has taken global fast-food behemoth McDonald’s Corporation to court over the use of the prefix “Mc”. The case, filed under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is slated for hearing before an Ahmedabad rural court on July 28.
The Indian company alleges that McDonald’s has issued “groundless threats” regarding McPatel’s use of the “Mc” prefix, objecting to its trademark application filed in March 2024. The company is seeking an injunction to prevent McDonald’s from initiating or threatening legal action over the mark “McPatel”.
In its application under Class 30, McPatel Foods aims to register the brand for bakery products, snacks, noodles, sauces, confectionery, and frozen foods — especially french fries, which lie at the heart of the dispute.
McDonald’s, through its legal representatives SS Rana & Co., filed a notice of opposition on August 27, 2024, arguing that the mark “McPatel” is “deceptively similar” to its established family of trademarks including McFries, McChicken, McVeggie, and McCafe. The company claims that the “Mc” prefix has acquired distinctiveness globally since the 1970s and in India since 1996.
The U.S.-based fast-food major contends that the “Mc” element is the dominant and source-identifying component of its brand and that “Patel” and “Foods” are merely descriptive. It further alleges that McPatel adopted the mark in bad faith to “ride on the goodwill” of McDonald’s.
Refuting all claims in a counter statement dated October 29, 2024, McPatel Foods asserts that it derived the mark from its corporate identity and not with the intent to mislead consumers. It emphasizes that the name should be viewed in its entirety, arguing: “McPatel is conceptually, phonetically and visually distinct from McDonald’s trademarks.”
The Indian MSME, which specializes in frozen french fries, also pointed out that the trademark examiner had found no conflicting marks, and the application was accepted and advertised without objection at that stage. It added that “no actual confusion or deception has been reported by consumers.”
Calling McDonald’s objection “a case of business jealousy,” McPatel contends that the American corporation is attempting to “monopolize the prefix ‘Mc’ across unrelated industries,” and that such exclusivity is neither reasonable nor legally justified under Indian law.
McPatel further argued that the prefix “Mc” is a common linguistic element and cannot be claimed exclusively by one entity. “Our mark reflects our brand identity and Indian roots,” a company spokesperson said. “We have no intention to copy or derive benefit from McDonald’s brand.”
The court is expected to hear preliminary arguments on July 28, 2025. Meanwhile, the trademark registry proceedings are likely to remain stalled pending the outcome of this litigation.
The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent in Indian trademark jurisprudence — especially for homegrown businesses seeking to protect their brand identities against global players.
