The 'David vs Goliath' court battles... where the little guy wins: How huge corporations like McDonalds, Vogue and Louis Vuitton dragged small businesses into legal battles in a bid to 'protect their brands' - but common sense prevailed!
A small takeaway chain is eyeing up a massive expansion after becoming the latest company to win a David v Goliath court war against an international mega business.
Supermac - which has about 100 outlets in Ireland - had been embroiled in a nine-year legal war with McDonald's over the use of the 'Big Mac' trademark.
The American fast-food behemoth had popularised the nickname for large burger sandwiches, registering it as a trademark in the EU in 1996.
But a landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice last week led to McDonald's losing the right to use the name 'Big Mac' in relation to chicken burgers - opening the door for Supermac's to open branches throughout Europe.
Justices found the famed burger chain could not show it had made genuine use of the trademark for a continuous period of five years - paving the way for other tiny companies to now use the name 'Mac' to sell poultry products in their food joints.
Supermac founder Pat McDonagh said he had 'no choice but to fight back' against the firm, which has over 38,000 outlets globally. McDonald's now has to pay the €1 million legal fees clocked up during the trademark tussle.
Now MailOnline is looking back at the other companies who clinched victory in their own David v Goliath struggle against huge multinationals, including a husband and wife duo in Norfolk who beat fashion giant Louis Vuitton and an Iraq War veteran who clinched victory against energy drinks leviathan, Monster.
Supermac founder Pat McDonagh (pictured) won his David v Goliath court war against McDonald's
Supermac - which has about 100 outlets in Ireland - had been embroiled in a nine-year legal war with McDonald's over the use of the 'Big Mac' trademark (file photo)
McDonald's now no longer has the exclusive right to use 'Big Mac' on chicken burgers sold in the European Union , but it can do so for patties made from beef, a court has ruled
Louis Vuitton v LV Bespoke - a home and garden brand
Lawrence and Victoria Osborne, from Reepham in Norfolk, were locked in a two-year legal battle after the fashion powerhouse Louis Vuitton took exception to the small home and garden brand using their initials in their company name.
The entrepreneurial couple who make gnomes in their back garden won their David and Goliath clash over their company name earlier this year..
Lawrence and Victoria Osborne used their initials to name their lockdown start-up business L V Bespoke.
But when they tried to register their trademark in the UK, they were handbagged by French fashion giant Louis Vuitton, which said the similarity in names and logos could damage their brand.
But Mr and Mrs Osborne – who have had a piece commissioned by the royal Sandringham estate in Norfolk - prevailed after a panel of the Intellectual Property Office ruled in their favour.
Lawrence and Victoria Osborne used their initials to name their lockdown start-up business L V Bespoke, but have now found themselves in a dispute
The pair run their small business, which sells gnomes and other garden furniture, from a workshop in the back garden
Last year, Louis Vuitton, which was founded in 1854 and has its headquarters in Paris, had a turnover of £67.5 billion - but it took the tiny grassroots company to court in a branding dispute
Read More
Couple who make garden ornaments WIN two-year David and Goliath legal battle against Louis Vuitton over their company name
The dispute has cost them £18,000 in legal fees – with Louis Vuitton only told to pay £4,000 compensation towards costs – but the couple hailed the 'common sense' ruling that meant they could 'finally move forward'.
Speaking after their victory in January Mrs Osborne said: 'I'd like Louis Vuitton to recognise what they've put a small, independent business through.
'It's unfair and it's cost us a lot of money. I imagine it has cost them a lot of money as well but they have the power and wealth to throw at it.
'At the end of the day, commons sense has prevailed, thankfully, and the outcome is what we all hoped for.
'I'm glad we stood up to these corporate bullies and we can be the true winners of this David and Goliath battle.'
Monster Energy v Thirsty Beasts
When Iraq war veteran Daniel Smith came up with an idea for a healthy drink, he had no idea it would capture the attention of US firm Monster Energy.
The businessman, from Newbury in Berkshire, was ready to unleash his Thirsty Beats product in 2016.
But Monster lashed out at the retired soldier's low-sugar, caffeine-free drink, opposing the trademark application by claiming customers would associate his brand with their 'unleash the beast,' and 'rehab the beast' slogans on their products.
Daniel Smith (pictured with wife Shona and daughters Elizabeth and Olivia) launched a business called Thirsty Beasts to sell low-sugar and caffeine-free drinks
Monster Energy objected, claiming Thirsty Beasts' name was too similar to the 'Unleash the Beast' and 'Rehab the Beast' slogans on their products
Monster Energy's parent company, Monster Beverage Corporation, has been involved in similar trademark disputes in the past
Mr Smith (pictured in Iraq) won the lengthy legal battle and can now register Thirsty Beasts as his trademark
Read More
Iraq war veteran, 40, wins court battle against energy drinks giant Monster over name of his new healthy low-sugar caffeine-free drink
The company hired top Wall Street lawyers to fight the father-of-two during a two-year legal battle.
It was only when Monster lost a Trademark Office ruling in 2017, and a subsequent appeal the following year, that they finally dropped their court action.
Speaking at the time, the former soldier said the name came to him when he realised there were few healthy drinks available for his daughters Elizabeth and Olivia.
He said: 'I would be extremely surprised if any regular or new customer of Monster Energy would confuse the brands as there are distinct differences between them.
'Consumers are clever enough to know the difference between a healthy drink and an energy drink.
'We don't believe Thirsty Beasts is similar to their branding at all.'
Uber v former drivers
The ride-hailing app lost a series of challenges after former drivers James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam took Uber to an employment tribunal in 2016.
The pair argued they worked for Uber and should be classed as workers rather than self-employed, so would be entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay.
Uber appealed several times, but lost, including at the court of Appeal in 2018, and at the Supreme Court in 2021.
The ride-hailing app lost a series of challenges after former drivers James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam took Uber to an employment tribunal in 2016
The pair argued they worked for Uber and should be classed as workers rather than self-employed, so would be entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay
Giving their judgement, senior judges ruled that Uber drivers were 'workers' - rather than being 'self-employed', as the company contended.
The landmark case had far-reaching consequences for those who worked in the gig economy, and the companies which employed them.
The battle, which started by Yaseen organising small bands of drivers in parks before spreading across the industry, led to a strengthening in the protection of workers' rights, globally.
Bentley (luxury cars) v Bentley (Manchester clothing firm)
The luxury car manufacturer Bentley lost its appeal against a ruling which said it infringed the copyright of a small, family-run clothing business with the same name.
The High Court ruled in 2019 that Bentley Motors had infringed the copyright of Bentley Clothing, and said the car firm could not use the 'Bentley' name on its UK clothing range.
The motoring behemoth appealed the following year, but judges at the Court of Appeal dismissed their claim.
The British carmaker, which is owned by Germany's Volkswagen, makes luxury cars in Crewe whose list prices start at about £135,000 for its cheapest model going up to about £280,500 for its more expensive motors.
Luxury car manufacturer Bentley had been embroiled in a legal war with a Manchester-based clothing firm called Bentley
London's High Court ruled in 2019 that Bentley Motors had infringed trademarks owned by Manchester-based Brandlogic, which owns the Bentley Clothing brand
The High Court ruled in 2019 that Bentley Motors had infringed the copyright of Bentley Clothing (pictured), and said the car firm could not use the 'Bentley' name on its UK clothing range.
The company also made clothes to match. Bentley Motors' website still offers a variety of clothing bearing the Bentley name, including a £200 jumper and a £90 t-shirt.
Dismissing the car company's case, judges at the Court of Appeal said there was 'no basis' for interfering with the ruling.
The legal dispute began when the clothing firm, founded in 1962, approached the Volkswagen-owned car giant in 1998 about the branding clash.
The High Court action was launched in 2017 after years of negotiations.
Bentley also made unsuccessful attempts to cancel the clothing firm's Bentley trademark, which it has held since 1982, at the UK Intellectual Property Office.
Solicitor Simon Bennett, who represented the Manchester-based clothing business, said it had been a true 'David and Goliath battle' which showed 'the law protects brand owners from infringements, even in situations where there is no equality of arms'.
National Trust Scotland v Hilltrek Outdoor Clothing
The National Trust Scotland went to war with clothing firm boss Dave Shand (left) over the Glencoe trademark on his company Hilltrek Outdoor Clothing
Conservation charity lawyers were accused of 'bullying and threatening' when they sent a letter (pictured) to the small clothing brand in 2017 demanding it stop selling its 'Glencoe' jacket.
The charity later admitted they had 'got it wrong' following a backlash, and said Hilltrek were permitted to sell the Glencoe jacket, unrestricted (pictured is a model wearing Hilltrek clothes)
Conservation charity lawyers were accused of 'bullying and threatening' when they sent a letter to the small clothing brand in 2017 demanding it stop selling its 'Glencoe' jacket.
National Trust Scotland took issue with Hilltrek selling the specific product because it holds the trademark for its name, based on a village in the west of the nation which National Trust Scotland owns.
The charity later admitted they had 'got it wrong' following a backlash, and said Hilltrek were permitted to sell the Glencoe jacket, unrestricted.
Rowing back, the trust's director of customer and cause, Mark Bishop, said they did not want the trademark to affect established companies with local products.
'On this occasion, we got it wrong,' he said at the time.
'If we had done our homework on Hilltrek before our lawyers contacted them, it would have been clear that this was a Scottish company which has been manufacturing this product with this name for a number of years.
'Our first response would then have been to come to a mutual agreement over the issue, which is what we have now achieved.
'I am pleased to say that there will be no restriction on Hilltrek continuing to use Glencoe as before as the name of this product line.
Coca Cola v Honest Coffees
The family-run Honest Coffees in Plymouth went up against drinks giant, Coca Cola,
The Devon-based firm were forced to lock horns with the global soft drinks juggernaut after being told by the US company's lawyers in 2017 to stop to stop using the names Honesty Coffees and Honest Milk.
Plymouth, famed as one of the homes of the Royal Navy's fleet, proved the battleground for another David and Goliath struggle.
This time it was between a fledgling eco-conscious beverage company, Honest Coffees and drinks giant, Coca Cola.
The Devon-based family-run firm were forced to lock horns with the global soft drinks juggernaut after being told by the US company's lawyers in 2017 to stop to stop using the names Honesty Coffees and Honest Milk.
Coca Cola's legal team claimed it was too similar to the multi-billion-pound company's own 'Honest Tea' product.
The Plymothian coffee seller was forced to cave into the demands by the giant and rebranded the following year, renaming itself Bibium.
But, in an unexpected twist, its loss against the fizzy drinks leviathan actually won over customers, who flocked to support the local business as a result of the legal row, owners Wyatt and Grace Cavalier told PlymouthLive.