McPatel Foods Private Limited has filed a civil suit against McDonald’s Corporation before an Ahmedabad rural court.

The Gujarat-based snack maker alleged that it has been receiving “groundless threats” from the American fast-food chain due to its use of the mark “McPatel.”

McPatel seeks protection from threats

The Indian snack maker filed the suit under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, aiming for an injunction to prevent McDonald’s from initiating or threatening legal action over its use of the “Mc” prefix in its corporate and product branding.

The case is listed for hearing on July 28, 2025, Bar and Bench reported.

Where is the issue stemming from?

The conflict began when McPatel Foods applied to register the mark “McPatel” under Class 30 (covering bakery goods, snacks, noodles, confectionery, sauces and frozen foods) in March 2024.

However, on August 27, 2024, McDonald’s filed an objection before the Indian Trade Marks Registry against this application.

McDonald’s strikes back

In its notice of opposition, McDonald’s alleged the following:

• Global enforcement: McDonald’s argues that its trademarks are registered in more than 100 countries, solely with an aim to protect against third-party use of “Mc”-formative marks.
• Dominant element: The fast-food chain also argues that “Patel” and “Foods” are quite common, making “Mc” the dominant and source-identifying element in “McPatel”.
• Bad intention: McDonald’s also alleged that McPatel adopted the mark in bad faith to benefit from McDonald’s goodwill, leading to confusion and deception and of the brand’s reputation.

McPatel’s rebuttal: No monopoly on “Mc”

In its counter statement filed on October 29, 2024, McPatel Foods denied all allegations, asserting the following:

• No prior conflict: The Trademark Registrar is said to have found no conflicting marks at the examination stage, leading to the application’s acceptance and advertisement.
• Lack of evidence: McPatel also pointed to the absence of actual confusion or consumer deception.
• Jealousy: McPatel contends that the opposition is driven by “business jealousy” and is filed in bad faith to harass a domestic company.

What’s next ?

McPatel stood by its rationale that “Mc” is a common prefix and McDonald’s cannot claim monopoly over it across all combinations or industries.

As of now, the trademark registry has not made a final decision on the dispute. The ongoing litigation is expected to cause further delays, as reported by Bar and Bench.