DUBLIN, Ireland: Supermac's has suffered another defeat in its prolonged trademark dispute with McDonald's, after the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) determined that the Irish chain's branding is too similar to the globally recognized "Big Mac" trademark.

The decision means that Supermac's cannot secure EU-wide trademark protection for its name, although it can continue operating under that name within Ireland.

The ruling followed an appeal by Supermac's against an earlier EUIPO decision that sided with McDonald's International Property Company. That earlier finding concluded that registering "Supermac's" as an EU trademark for fast-food services could cause consumer confusion.

The dispute dates back to 2016, when Supermac's applied to register its name across the European Union. McDonald's opposed the move, citing its long-standing "Big Mac" trademark, which has been registered for meat sandwiches since 1998 and has built significant global recognition.

Supermac's argued during the appeal that the two brands had coexisted in Ireland for roughly four decades without evidence of public confusion. The company also challenged the earlier EUIPO assessment, saying it acknowledged only low to average similarities between the brands yet still concluded there was a risk of confusion, a conclusion Supermac's maintained was inconsistent.

"There's no reasonable likelihood that the relevant public would mistake a Supermac's restaurant for a Big Mac burger," the company argued in its submission.

The Irish chain further contended that accepting the ruling would imply customers might visit one of its restaurants expecting to purchase a McDonald's product, despite the latter's strong global identity.

McDonald's countered that the situation in Ireland was not decisive, emphasizing that the case concerned the broader European Union, where "Big Mac" is widely recognized. The company maintained that consumers might not clearly distinguish between a product name and a restaurant brand, particularly given the strength of its flagship item.

It described the "Big Mac" as an iconic product closely tied to its identity for more than 40 years, arguing that it carries a high degree of distinctiveness and reputation. McDonald's also asserted that the distinction between product branding and restaurant naming can be blurred in consumers' perceptions.

In its assessment, the EUIPO board of appeal found that the goods and services in question—fast food products and restaurant services—were related and aimed at the same audience, making them at least somewhat similar. It also concluded that the two names shared some limited visual and phonetic similarities and a more notable conceptual overlap.

The board highlighted the strong recognition of the "Big Mac" trademark across the EU, particularly among fast-food consumers, and said its established reputation increases the likelihood of confusion. It emphasized that stronger trademarks are entitled to broader protection under EU law.

Ultimately, the board determined that the similarities between the two brands, combined with the high distinctiveness of "Big Mac," meant confusion could not be ruled out. It suggested that consumers might interpret "Supermac's" as a related or derivative brand.

The ruling also clarified that trademark assessments must be based on how consumers perceive the marks, rather than the marketing intentions of the companies involved. Additionally, it stated that evidence of coexistence in a single country, such as Ireland, was insufficient when evaluating rights that apply across the entire EU.

This latest setback comes despite a previous legal victory for Supermac's in 2024, when the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled to limit McDonald's use of the "Big Mac" trademark in certain areas, including restaurant services and poultry products.