In a significant and unusual case unfolding in India’s intellectual property landscape, McPatel Foods Pvt Ltd, a Gujarat-based business, has brought legal action against the multinational fast-food conglomerate McDonald’s Corporation, challenging the latter’s claim of exclusive rights over the prefix “Mc” in India. The dispute not only raises critical questions regarding the scope of trademark protection but also marks a potential turning point for the way Indian courts balance local brand identity with global brand dominance.
The Core Dispute: Can a Prefix Be Owned?
The case originated when McDonald’s issued a legal notice to McPatel Foods, asserting that the Indian company’s use of the prefix “Mc” amounted to trademark infringement and dilution of McDonald’s well-established brand identity. McDonald’s argued that “McPatel” creates a likelihood of confusion with its globally recognized family of marks, including “McDonald’s,” “McChicken,” “McCafe,” and “McDelivery.”
In response, McPatel Foods initiated proceedings before the Ahmedabad Commercial Court, seeking relief under the grounds of “groundless threats” under the Trademarks Act, 1999. McPatel contends that:
- The prefix “Mc” is a generic term of Gaelic origin meaning “son of,” and therefore cannot be monopolized.
- Its brand identity is independently developed, with no attempt to ride on McDonald’s goodwill.
- The use of “Mc” in McPatel is culturally contextual and not intended to confuse or mislead consumers.
The company is seeking a judicial declaration of non-infringement, a permanent injunction restraining McDonald’s from pursuing further claims, and damages for business interference.
This blog is a part of our The Ultimate Guide to Intellectual Property Law – ATB Legal Blogpost.
Legal Grounds and Trademark Principles Involved
Under the Trademarks Act, 1999, the registrability and enforceability of a trademark depend on:
- Its distinctiveness, either inherent or acquired.
- Absence of likelihood of confusion with existing trademarks.
- Lack of descriptiveness or generic nature unless secondary meaning has been established.
McDonald’s will likely argue that “Mc” is a distinctive element of its series of marks and has acquired well-known status under Section 2(zg) of the Act. Indian courts have recognized series marks, particularly when they operate as a family with common prefixes or suffixes that signal origin to the average consumer.
Conversely, McPatel’s legal position relies on the argument that “Mc” alone lacks source-identifying capability in the Indian context and that its application in McPatel is not misleading, phonetically or visually.
Legal Precedents and Comparative Insights
- Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001)
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of consumer confusion and phonetic similarity, especially in products targeting different markets.
- Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. (2018)
The Delhi High Court found that even partial similarities, when coupled with similar trade channels, can mislead consumers. However, Sardarbuksh was ultimately allowed to continue using the name with modifications.
- Infosys Technologies Ltd. v. Jupiter Infosys Ltd. (2006)
The Court ruled that prefix-based similarity must be assessed holistically, considering the total impact of the mark, not just its components.
These decisions collectively show that courts consider consumer perception, trade channels, visual distinctiveness, and intent in determining infringement.
Wider Implications for Indian Trademark Law
For Local Businesses
This case may offer relief to small and medium enterprises that frequently face pressure from multinational corporations asserting overbroad IP rights. If the court sides with McPatel, it may reinforce the position that common linguistic elements and cultural expressions are not automatically exclusive trademarks.
For Multinational Corporations
A ruling in favor of McPatel would require global entities to re-examine the enforceability of their “family of marks” strategy in India and take care not to overreach when asserting rights against local players.
For Legal Practitioners
This matter could help clarify judicial approaches to prefix-based trademark claims and the interpretation of “well-known” marks, encouraging lawyers to reevaluate advice on brand architecture and enforcement scope.
Cultural and Commercial Context
India’s trademark regime, though harmonized with TRIPS and international principles, continues to evolve with local jurisprudence. The McPatel matter brings to the forefront cultural considerations in branding — particularly where heritage naming conventions intersect with commercial interests.
The outcome could have broader ramifications beyond just trademark law. It might influence foreign direct investment policies, startup ecosystem confidence, and even consumer rights, as it highlights the tension between brand protection and the need to foster indigenous enterprise.
The Road Ahead
As of July 2025, the case is under preliminary hearings in the Ahmedabad Commercial Court. Depending on its outcome, it could be elevated to the High Court or the Supreme Court on points of law.
If the judiciary acknowledges the legitimacy of McPatel’s use, it will send a powerful message that trademark law in India serves both protection and balance — upholding the rights of businesses to defend unique identities without stifling competition or cultural expression.
Alternatively, a win for McDonald’s could strengthen the enforceability of well-known marks and series marks in India, especially if backed by consumer recognition and market evidence.
The Prefix Battle: McPatel vs. McDonald’s and the Future of Trademark Interpretation in India
The McPatel vs. McDonald’s dispute goes beyond a mere branding conflict — it raises a pivotal question for Indian trademark jurisprudence: Can a multinational claim exclusive rights over a common linguistic prefix?
This case tests the limits of how Indian courts interpret distinctiveness, consumer confusion, and fair competition in an era where global trademarks meet local entrepreneurial expression. A ruling in McDonald’s favor could open the door for broad claims over generic elements, while a win for McPatel would reinforce India’s commitment to protecting cultural identity and supporting MSMEs within the trademark framework.
Whichever way the court rules, the outcome will shape future decisions on prefix-based marks, series trademarks, and the balance between global brand enforcement and local brand autonomy. It marks a defining moment in how India chooses to align its trademark law with both global norms and national commercial realities.
