The Supermac’s McDonald’s trademark dispute now has two opposite outcomes. On 30 June 2026 the EUIPO’s Fifth Board of Appeal confirmed the refusal of the Irish chain’s EU trade mark application, finding a likelihood of confusion with BIG MAC. On 31 July 2026 the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) dismissed McDonald’s opposition to Supermac’s UK applications. For brands in both markets, it confirms that since Brexit the EU and the UK need separate strategies.
Key takeaways
- EUIPO (case R 1216/2025-5): SUPERMAC’S refused for restaurant services because of likelihood of confusion with BIG MAC.
- UKIPO (decision O/0686/26): McDonald’s opposition dismissed and both SUPERMAC’S applications allowed to proceed.
- The roughly 40 years of coexistence in Ireland that Supermac’s invoked were not enough to show peaceful coexistence across the EU.
- Since 2021 the UK and the EU are separate trademark systems: a win in one office does not bind the other.
What did the EUIPO decide?
Supermac’s applied in May 2016 to register SUPERMAC’S as an EU trade mark (EUTM) for fast-food restaurant services. McDonald’s opposed it on the basis of BIG MAC, registered for meat sandwiches since December 1998, and won before the Opposition Division in June 2025, as the Irish Examiner reported on 7 August 2026.
According to the EU IP Helpdesk summary of 4 September 2026, the Board of Appeal found the signs visually and aurally similar to a below-average degree and conceptually similar to at least an average degree. It held that BIG MAC had enhanced distinctive character through intensive use. Even though meat sandwiches (class 30) and restaurant services (class 43) are similar only to a low degree, the Board found a likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation. The Irish law firm Mason Hayes & Curran (MHC) notes that the Board focused on English- and German-speaking consumers. Coexistence in Ireland did not prove peaceful coexistence across the EU.
Supermac’s can still trade under its name in Ireland; it simply cannot hold an EU-wide registration.
What did the UKIPO decide?
Supermac’s filed two UK applications in April 2021, for the word SUPERMAC’S and its logo in class 43. McDonald’s opposed them relying on BIG MAC, McDONALD’S, McCAFE and Grand Big Mac, under section 5(2)(b) (likelihood of confusion), section 5(3) (reputation) and section 5(4)(a) (passing off) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, according to MHC’s analysis of 17 August 2026.
The Hearing Officer found only low or very low visual similarity. BIG MAC shares the MAC element, but the differences were enough to tell the marks apart. The officer also rejected McDonald’s “family of marks” argument, separating marks built on the “Mc” prefix from a mark using “MAC”. Any association a consumer might make was not confusion about commercial origin. The opposition was dismissed and both applications can proceed to registration.
The Supermac’s McDonald’s trademark decisions side by side
| Point | EUIPO Board of Appeal | UKIPO |
|---|---|---|
| Date and reference | 30 June 2026, R 1216/2025-5 | 31 July 2026, O/0686/26 |
| Earlier rights | BIG MAC (meat sandwiches) | BIG MAC, McDONALD’S, McCAFE, Grand Big Mac |
| Similarity of signs | Below average visually and aurally; at least average conceptually | Low or very low visually |
| Result | Refusal confirmed | Opposition dismissed |
Why can the same conflict end differently in the EU and the UK?
Since 1 January 2021 the EUIPO and the UKIPO apply different laws to different territories, and neither is bound by the other’s decisions. Three factors explain the split here:
- The relevant public. An EUTM can be refused because of confusion in only part of the Union. Here the Board looked at English- and German-speaking consumers, while the UKIPO assessed UK consumers only.
- How the earlier rights were used. The EUIPO weighed the enhanced distinctiveness of BIG MAC. In the UK, McDonald’s relied on several marks and a family argument that the officer rejected.
- The record. Each office decides on the evidence filed before it.
The background matters too. In case T-58/23, decided on 5 June 2024, the General Court revoked the BIG MAC EUTM for chicken sandwiches, poultry products and some restaurant services for lack of genuine use. McDonald’s kept it for other goods, including the meat sandwiches it relied on in 2026.
What this means for your business
- File in the EU and the UK separately and on purpose, with the UK application timed and scoped on its own merits.
- Run clearance searches in both registers, and in the EU consider how the mark reads in the main languages.
- Do not rely on coexistence in one country as proof for the whole EU.
Our trademark team for EU and UK filings can plan both applications together, and our opposition and IP disputes team handles the proceedings that follow.
Where brand owners get the EU–UK split wrong
- Assuming one result predicts the other. As this case shows, the same marks can lose in Alicante and win in Newport.
- Copying one evidence file into both proceedings without adapting it to each territory and public.
- Leaving the UK until later. A UK application filed after a third party’s can face an earlier right that did not exist at the start.
Frequently asked questions
Did Supermac’s win or lose against McDonald’s in 2026?
Both. On 30 June 2026 the EUIPO Board of Appeal confirmed that SUPERMAC’S cannot be registered as an EU trade mark for restaurant services because of a likelihood of confusion with BIG MAC. On 31 July 2026 the UKIPO dismissed McDonald’s opposition, so Supermac’s two UK applications can proceed to registration.
Why did coexistence in Ireland not help Supermac’s at the EUIPO?
The Board of Appeal found that the roughly 40 years of side-by-side trading in Ireland that Supermac’s relied on did not show peaceful coexistence across the European Union. An EU trade mark covers all member states, so the Board assessed likely confusion among English- and German-speaking consumers more widely, not only in the Irish market.
Does an EU trade mark still protect a brand in the United Kingdom?
No. Since 1 January 2021 an EU trade mark has no effect in the UK. Brands need a UK registration, and new conflicts are decided by the UKIPO and UK courts under UK law, which can reach a different result from the EUIPO on the same marks, as the Supermac’s case shows.
Can IP Global Guard handle trademark filings and oppositions in both the EU and the UK?
Yes. We prepare and coordinate EU and UK filings and oppositions, acting before the EUIPO directly where our professionals are entitled and through qualified representatives otherwise, and with qualified UK representatives before the UKIPO. You keep one strategy and one point of contact for both territories.
How IP Global Guard can help with your EU and UK strategy
IP Global Guard, the intellectual property line of META Channel Corporation Limited, an Irish group, plans cross-border trademark strategy across more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa with one point of contact.
Tell us which marks you use in the EU and the UK and where you expect conflicts. We will review both registers, plan the filings and coordinate any opposition. Contact our team about your EU and UK marks.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects the position on its publication date.
Sources
- EU IP Helpdesk, Supermac’s defeats McDonald’s at the UKIPO while the EUIPO reaches the opposite conclusion (4 September 2026)
- Mason Hayes & Curran, Supermac’s successful in latest UK trade mark dispute with McDonald’s (17 August 2026)
- Irish Examiner, Supermac’s loses right to register name as trademark in EU (7 August 2026)
- EUR-Lex, General Court judgment of 5 June 2024, Supermac’s v EUIPO – McDonald’s (BIG MAC), T-58/23
