Jurisdiction: Australia; historical case commentary. Reviewed 27 October 2026.
The Big Mac/Big Jack dispute has moved beyond the predictions in the original article. The Federal Court delivered its substantive decision on 16 November 2023 in McD Asia Pacific LLC v Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412.
The trade mark result
The court did not find BIG JACK and MEGA JACK deceptively similar to BIG MAC and MEGA MAC for the infringement claims before it. McDonald’s challenge to the BIG JACK registration also failed. That does not mean the BIG MAC mark ceased to have value or that every similar burger name is now safe.
A separate consumer-law issue
The court did find the “25% more Aussie beef” representation misleading in the circumstances assessed. Trade mark infringement and the truth of comparative advertising are different legal questions; success on one issue does not decide the other.
Why the distinction matters
A famous brand does not receive ownership of every similar word or prefix. The actual marks, goods and statutory test matter. Nor does a failed infringement claim automatically cancel all of the claimant’s registrations. The judgment also addressed the separate MEGA MAC non-use cross-claim.
For food businesses
Search proposed names, check registered rights and substantiate comparative product claims before launching. A recipe, a brand name and a marketing assertion can raise different issues. Read the decision for the evidence and limits rather than treating a colourful “burger war” headline as legal clearance.

Comments
Post a Comment