Quality Inns Intern., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp.

Decision Date16 September 1988
Docket NumberCiv. No. PN-87-2606.
PartiesQUALITY INNS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. McDONALD'S CORPORATION.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Laurence R. Hefter, Robert D. Litowitz, Griffith Price, and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, Washington, D.C., and Harry M. Rifkin, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.

Stephen H. Sachs, Thomas P. Olson, Stephen S. Zimmerman, and Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C., and Karen B. Ksander, Isham, Lincoln & Beale, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

OPINION

NIEMEYER, District Judge.

On September 21, 1987, Quality Inns International, Inc. announced a new chain of economy hotels to be marketed under the name "McSleep Inn." The response of McDonald's Corporation was immediate. It demanded by letter sent three days later that Quality International not use the name "McSleep" because it infringed on McDonald's family of marks that are characterized by the use of the prefix "Mc" combined with a generic word. Five days later, on September 29, 1987, Quality International filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the mark "McSleep Inn" (1) does not infringe McDonald's federally registered trademarks in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (2) does not constitute a false designation of origin or a false description or representation of services as being associated with or originating with McDonald's in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and (3) does not infringe or violate any common law rights that McDonald's may have to its marks.

McDonald's filed a counterclaim alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under the same laws that Quality International invoked in its complaint for a declaratory judgment. In addition, McDonald's alleges dilution of its marks in violation of the Illinois Anti-Dilution Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. Ch. 140, § 22.

The case came to trial before the Court without a jury on July 18, 1988 and concluded on July 26, 1988. The Court has reviewed all of the evidence received at trial, including the deposition testimony offered. It has studied the memoranda and cases submitted by counsel for the parties. This opinion will serve as the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law as prescribed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

I. THE ISSUES

The issues are framed by the positions taken by the parties.

McDonald's alleges a straightforward trademark infringement and unfair competition action. It contends that it is the owner of a family of marks each of which is formulated by combining the prefix "Mc" with a generic word to form a fanciful trademark or service mark. It contends that the name "McSleep Inn" that has been adopted by Quality International is likely to cause confusion and that Quality International selected the word "McSleep" deliberately to trade on the goodwill and reputation of McDonald's. It claims attorneys' fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

Quality International's defenses may be summarized under four points, as follows:

1) No likelihood of confusion: McDonald's cannot claim ownership over every formative of "Mc" plus a generic word, and the formative "McSleep" is not a name or, when used in its logo form, is not a logo that is likely to cause confusion.

2) Noncompeting uses: McDonald's marks have been developed in the fast-food business and do not preclude the use of "McSleep Inn" in the lodging business.

3) Extensive third-party uses: By allowing or acquiescing in the use by third parties of a proliferation of the use of words formulated by combining "Mc" with a generic word, McDonald's should be denied the right to preclude the use of "McSleep Inn."

4) "Mc" is generic: The use of "Mc" as a prefix has become generic and has entered into the English language with a recognized meaning of its own.

II. QUALITY INTERNATIONAL

Quality International is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices in Silver Spring, Maryland. It is engaged in the lodging business, particularly in inns, hotels, suites, and resorts. Since 1981 it has been the fastest growing hotel franchise chain in the United States and is now the third largest franchiser of hotels both in terms of hotels and rooms available. Its sales for 1987 were over $56 million.

After Robert C. Hazard, Jr. became the chief executive officer of Quality International in 1980, the company adopted a long range plan that began with an analysis segmenting the lodging market into five sections: economy, luxury budget, mid-priced, luxury, and super luxury. Mr. Hazard then aimed various products of Quality International at these market segments. Clarion Hotels and Resorts became the luxury product of Quality International; Quality Inns, the mid-priced; and Comfort Inns, the luxury budget.

Having no product to compete in the economy segment, Quality International designed a concept for a hotel with a smaller basic room which would rent for between $20 and $29 per night. Each room would have a queen size bed, plush carpeting, color TV, and a contiguous bathroom. There would be no conference rooms, food or other amenities on the premises, except a swimming pool in certain geographical areas. These economy hotels would all be of new construction and a consistent architecture. The name selected by Mr. Hazard for this product was "McSleep Inn." The first McSleep Inn is scheduled to open in December, 1988.

To improve its marketing of all products, Quality International adopted a "three chain logo" which consists of the three individualized but compatible logos for each of the products offered (Clarion, Quality Inn, and Comfort Inn), arranged horizontally under the caption "Quality International." Each logo, though different, clearly belongs to a family. The outside shape of all three is square with rounded corners and all three include within the square a stylized sun and the applicable name "Comfort," "Quality," or "Clarion."

This three chain logo will be expanded into a four chain logo when the McSleep Inns join the family of Quality International hotels and motels. As the new corporate signature of Quality International, the four chain logo will be featured in all corporate advertising.

While it is the policy of Quality International to advertise with a consistent corporate identification, at the present time, inns and motels franchised by Quality International advertise their individual facilities without reference to the corporate signature. Moreover, limited access highway signs which announce lodging at exits only depict the logo of the particular motels available at the exit; government regulations do not permit inclusion of the three chain or four chain logo. Examples of telephone directory advertising and even franchising offering materials received at trial did not include the Quality International corporate signature.

III. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION

McDonald's Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices in Oak Brook, Illinois. Founded by Ray A. Kroc, it opened its first restaurant in April, 1955, in Des Plaines, Illinois. It is now the largest fast food business in the world, with over 10,000 restaurants in 45 countries and over $14 billion in sales annually. In the United States it owns or franchises over 8200 restaurants. McDonald's restaurants serve over 18 million people daily, and of all the people in the United States who eat out, 11 percent eat dinner and 25 percent eat breakfast at McDonald's. McDonald's claims that within the last four weeks, 89 percent of all children between the ages of two and seven and 64 percent of all adults have eaten at a McDonald's restaurant. Indeed, over 95 percent of the entire American population has eaten at a McDonald's, and eight percent of the entire work force in the United States once worked at a McDonald's restaurant.

In mass marketing McDonald's has widely promoted its business philosophy of "quality, service, cleanliness and value," or "Q.S.C.V." It first began network television advertising in 1965, and today 85 percent of its advertising is television advertising, although it also advertises on the radio and in print. In fiscal 1987, it spent over $400 million in media advertising in the United States alone. Its total expenditures for advertising and promotion over the last years have been in excess of six percent of its total sales and approximately $917 million for fiscal 1987. It is the largest single brand advertiser in the United States.

At trial McDonald's presented diverse examples of its advertising directed at particular groups and designed for particular purposes. Approximately 22 years ago, McDonald's created the figure of Ronald McDonald, a fictitious clown who presides over McDonaldland. While Ronald McDonald over the years has promoted values consistent with McDonald's intended image, he has never urged directly that children purchase McDonald's products. Ronald McDonald is also used extensively in connection with Ronald McDonald Houses, a charitable function supported by McDonald's.

McDonald's has achieved an extremely high awareness in the minds of the American public. It claims that when asked to name a fast food restaurant, 90 percent of the public will name McDonald's. The recognition of Ronald McDonald by children between the ages of two and eight is 100 percent, a figure matched only by Santa Claus.

In 1977, McDonald's began advertising a fanciful language called "McLanguage" that featured the formulation of words by combining the "Mc" prefix with a variety of nouns and adjectives. In television advertising viewed by the Court, Ronald McDonald is shown teaching children how to formulate "Mc" words, and he used words such as McService, McPrice, McFries and McBest.

In a consistent vein McDonald's has coined "Mc" words for many of its products and services. McChicken, Chicken McNuggets, Egg McMuffin or Sausage McMuffin, McD.L.T., McHappy Day, McFortune Cookie, McFeast, McCola,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Microsoft Corp. v. Grey Computer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • December 21, 1995
    ...show intent to infringe in order to prove liability. Brittingham v. Jenkins, 914 F.2d 447 (4th Cir.1990); Quality Inns Int'l, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 695 F.Supp. 198, 221 (D.Md.1988); Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Gordon Group, 627 F.Supp. 878, 889 (M.D.N.C. 1985). Rather, Defendants' intent goe......
  • NFB v. Loompanics Enterprises
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • August 20, 1996
    ...connection or endorsement' exists between" the NFB and Loompanics. NFB's Mem. in Opp. at 6 (quoting Quality Inns Intern., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 695 F.Supp. 198, 209 (D.Md.1988). The second argument urged by the NFB is that potential contributors, who are aware of the book, might confuse......
  • Shakespeare Co. v. Silstar Corp. of America, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • January 2, 1996
    ...or endorsement exists between the owner of the senior mark and the owner of the junior mark." Quality Inns Int'l, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 695 F.Supp. 198, 209 (D.Md. 1988). As the term "likelihood of confusion" suggests, while it is not necessary for a trademark owner to prove that the de......
  • Gibson Brands, Inc. v. Armadillo Distribution Enters.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • April 6, 2023
    ... ... quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the ... LDBrinkman ... Corp ., 860 F.2d 1275, 1297 (5th Cir. 1988). Ultimately, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • The Confusion Trap: Rethinking Parody in Trademark Law
    • United States
    • University of Whashington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 88-3, March 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...F.2d 803, 817 (8th Cir. 1969) (finding 11% confusion "not an insignificant percentage"). 276. Quality Inns Int'l v. McDonald's Corp., 695 F. Supp. 198, 219 (D. Md. 1988) (finding 16.3% confusion "is an appreciable number that cannot be dismissed"). 277. Dogan and Lemley, supra note 10, at 1......
  • It's Not You, It's Us: Assessing the Contribution of Trademark Goodwill to Properly Balance the Results of Trademark License Rejection
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 35-1, March 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...CHICKEN MCNUGGETS, Registration No. 1548683.4. MCFLURRY, Registration No. 2805110; Quality Inns Int'l, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 695 F. Supp. 198, 221 (D. Md. 1988) (ruling in favor of McDonald's, finding that adding the prefix "Mc" to a generic word had acquired a secondary meaning, thus m......
  • We All Know It’s a Knock-off! Re-evaluating the Need for the Post-sale Confusion Doctrine in Trademark Law
    • United States
    • University of North Carolina School of Law North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology No. 14-2012, January 2012
    • Invalid date
    ...F.3d 1503, 1510 (2d Cir. 1997) (quotingMCCARTHY, supra note 7, §§ 23:2, 23:10–11 (1996)).Quality Inns Int’l, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 695 F. Supp. 198, 210 (D. Md. 1988) (emphasis added).marks, the law forecloses protection for the trademark holder.89The concept of likelihood of confusion ......
  • The 2006 Trademark Dilution Revision Act Rolls Out a Luxury Claim and a Parody Exemption
    • United States
    • University of North Carolina School of Law North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology No. 8-2006, January 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...for a trucking company to be confusingly similar to the same mark for grocery store services); Quality Inns Int'l v. McDonald's Corp., 695 F. Supp. 198 (D. Md. 1988) (holding "McSLEEP" for hotels to be confusingly similar to the McDonald's family of marks, even though McDonald's Corporation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT