I mean this article is more sensationalist than anything else around it. This is a non-story.
The judge here hasn’t implied that the McRib is or isn’t deception. They’ve just ruled that the question is valid enough to warrant a court hearing.
McDonalds tried to dismiss the question as obviously absurd. The judge hasn’t even really disagreed with that, except that it isn’t immediately obviously absurd. “McRib” + kinda rib shaped = maybe a claim of it being ribs? Worth a bigger discussion, at least.
The facts presented in the hearing will play it out, and realistically McD’s will probably win. The McRib is priced the same as their other fast food offerings, and far less than an actual set of ribs would be. I mean, it’s kinda like arguing a “Big Mac” implies some special cut of beef, or a McNugget is a special type of chicken (it is, but not like that).
I mean this article is more sensationalist than anything else around it. This is a non-story.
The judge here hasn’t implied that the McRib is or isn’t deception. They’ve just ruled that the question is valid enough to warrant a court hearing.
McDonalds tried to dismiss the question as obviously absurd. The judge hasn’t even really disagreed with that, except that it isn’t immediately obviously absurd. “McRib” + kinda rib shaped = maybe a claim of it being ribs? Worth a bigger discussion, at least.
The facts presented in the hearing will play it out, and realistically McD’s will probably win. The McRib is priced the same as their other fast food offerings, and far less than an actual set of ribs would be. I mean, it’s kinda like arguing a “Big Mac” implies some special cut of beef, or a McNugget is a special type of chicken (it is, but not like that).
But McD’s still have to go to court and argue their case. And who knows, maybe they’ll blow it up massively in their face like that time they lost the European trademark for Big Mac.