Hell The MacDonalds of Skye could have withheld rights 100s of years ago for the sake of pride if it had ever occurred to them to be so petty -and the MacDonalds of Skye were GOOD at petty if it had swords and hacking people to bits involved.

Yeppers! That's my stepfather's clan. He's awfully proud of his ancestry, but refuses to wear a kilt, which is probably a good thing from an aesthetic standpoint.

Speaking of McDonald/McDonalds, etc., he had absolutely no trouble calling his own business McDonald ________. Since it wasn't fast food and was in no danger of being mistaken as such, there wasn't even the whiff of a lawsuit.

And in fact the McDonald's issue brings up an interesting point, if not the one intended. I think what you are describing is actually wrong, but not for the reason given. I don't think it is that it is an old name.

Copyright and trademark have gone crazy. The original intent of copyright was to given innovators an incentive to work at it full time. The original intent of trademark was to prevent fraud - to prevent one business person from taking advantage of the reputation of another by pretending to be that person or part of that business. Both have been expanded into new property forms. It is a new taking for the commons where "The sheep devour the men". The Brits do this as much as the Americans. For example I once worked for Petrobras the Brazilian national oil company. It's trademark was a variation on the Brazilian flag. A British court held that invalid, because the colors were the same as BPS and since both were oil companies this could cause confusion. In short the national oil company of the Brazilian state was forbidden to use the Brazilian Flag! I would say that is worse than the the McDonalds thing. But really they are all part of the same thing - not American arrogance, but corporate power.

but corporate power.

Gone mad!

In short the national oil company of the Brazilian state was forbidden to use the Brazilian Flag!

I don't know anything about British trademark law. But I see nothing wrong with the court refusing to protect a later user in favor of a prior one with a valid trademark. So what? They're forced to use something OTHER than the Brazilian flag to mark their product-- which just happens to be the same product as another's with a similar mark. This is a classic trademark law: preventing customer confusion.

Hey, I'm a McDonald! Well, 1/4 anyway. My grandma was Mary Donald Huey McDonald from Glencoe.

In Nova Scotia.

But she sounded pure Scottish.

I don't know anything about British trademark law. But I see nothing wrong with the court refusing to protect a later user in favor of a prior one with a valid trademark. So what? They're forced to use something OTHER than the Brazilian flag to mark their product-- which just happens to be the same product as another's with a similar mark. This is a classic trademark law: preventing customer confusion.

What's wrong is the idea that the profit motive should override national identity. Especially when a) the national identity came first and b) the UK would go apeshit if anyone challenged their right to use the Union Jack for any purpose we wish.

What's wrong is the idea that the profit motive should override national identity

I'm markedly sceptical of the idea that the Brazilian company had something other than profit in mind. Now, the idea that a Brazilian should have first dibs on national iconography to make money? Hell, I'm the girl still mad that Mazda uses capoeira music in their ads.

But so many people that aren't even slightly Jamaican make money off our icons that I have no fight.

But the trademarks were really not similar. The Brazilian flag does not look a great deal like the BP logo. It was only the colors that were similar. And if the court was really afraid confusion was possible they could have ordered changes. But they simply forbad the use of those colors. So BP how has a excluse rights on Green and Yellow within the oil business. I'm sorry; that is insane. You do not have to go that far to prevent confusion.

Also , you want a far more aburd case. As a protest, someone has trademarked the phrase "Freedom of Expression". He hoped of course that it would be knocked down. But so far it has been upheld.

The result of not protecting a name can be seen in the case of Famous Original Ray's. There used to be one pizzeria in New York called Ray's. It was really good, and "Ray's Pizza" got to have a reputation as some of the best pizza in NY. Then some more people opened up pizzerias called Ray's. So then the original Ray's changed their sign to say "Original Ray's Pizza." But then others started saying "Famous Ray's," and "Original Ray's," and by now there hundreds of pizzerias around the city with variations on "Famous Original Ray's Pizza." So the statement "Ray's Pizza is the best pizza in New York" has no meaning anymore, because no one will have any clue which restaurant you're talking about, and someone who's told, "If you go to New York, you have to eat at Ray's," probably won't end up buying pizza at the pizzeria that actually earned the "best pizza" reputation.

But it's not Brazil that's being prevented from doing anything. It's a privately owned company that happens to be from Brazil. Quite frankly, it's refreshing to see the potential for harm to the consumer (confusion) being held above the desires of the corporation for once. [Yes, I know it's actually the other corporation actually being protected, but allow me my delusions.]