No, truth is my sources are hearsay and urban myth.

The closest I could find from a reliable source was that they sued a sandwich stand called McMunchies.

not because I agree with Zoe about how national identity should override other rights.

I don't think I said that, I said that that would be the basis of offence to Brazil -in different words. If no-one in Brazil gives a crap why raise the example???

So people aren't sitting in their living rooms in Brazil thinking bloody British who do they think they are?

Well, if you and Gar are outraged, it's more than half likely they are. But nevertheless, the British government has every right to decide what to trademark in their own country, and well, the Brazilians don't get much of a say in that.

Whether or not they're pissed does not mean that refusal to extend a mark or protect one is a diss of a entire nation.

my sources are hearsay and urban myth

For future reference -- hearsay and urban myth don't hold much water in an arena where you're quite likely to be debating with lawyers and proto-lawyers.

As for the J'can lawsuit:

The defending company, McDonald's Corporation Limited ("the Jamaican company") was formed in Jamaica in 1971. Since then a small restaurant called McDonalds which sells traditional Jamaican dishes in addition to fast food has been operating in Kingston. In 1994 McDonald's announced they intended to open restaurants in Jamaica for the first time. In September 1995, McDonald's opened their first restaurant in Montego Bay. A month later they served a Statement of Claim on the Jamaican company seeking an injunction to prevent them operating under its current name. The Jamaican company has responded by seeking an injunction preventing McDonald's opening any restaurant in Kingston under the name McDonald's.

On 5th July [1996], the Jamaican High Court granted an injunction banning McDonalds US from opening outlets in Kingston, Jamaica pending the full hearing of the action which is not expected to take place until 1998. McDonalds were also ordered to pay the Jamaican company's legal costs.

It was a brief stand against megacorporations, but it sure makes me giggle.

For future references -- hearsay and urban myth don't hold much water in an arena where you're quite likely to be debating with lawyers and proto-lawyers.

If I were debating in an arena where an actual difference could be made then I'd make a greater effort.

Do proto-lawyers wear silly hats so we can tell them apart?

God bless Jamaica. But I'm sure you'll tell me She already did.

If I were debating in an arena where an actual difference could be made then I'd make a greater effort.

Ouch. I think I've been dismissed.

God bless Jamaica. But I'm sure you'll tell me She already did.

Sometimes, it's the only explanation.

No, truth is my sources are hearsay and urban myth.

It might be interesting to check Snopes. Thing is, I find the whole idea very believable.

Ouch. I think I've been dismissed

Not at all, but who here is going to rush to Scotland's defence?

Edit: I mean, it matters a lot to me, as I guess you can tell, but I wouldn't expect to convince the rest of the world/Buffistas that it is all life and death for them.

OK, I've also found one cite of a man named Ronald McDonald threatening to sue McDonald's because "use of the name Ronald McDonald for the clown used by the company to entertain children was an insult to the Scottish clan system." He states that McDonald's is saying that people named McDonald can't use the name, but I can't find any actual cases of that. I'd assume that someone setting up a new fast food restaurant would want to use a name other than McDonald's, so that people would know that they were a new, local, different company, and not the mediocre international chain.