The Mc"Clans" are In Danger

[GDub]

Charities are usually registered as such; usually, although not always, with 501(c)(3), tax status....

That one doesn't like McDonalds shouldn't cloud one's judgement in this matter, which should be based on a well-rounded and well-informed understanding of the facts, setting aside emotion or political leanings.

After I posted I almost went back in to edit mode to change "charity" to "charitable event," but I left it figuring on the response.

And, because I'm not a lawyer or a judge my reaction to such matters will always take a different course. That said, more times than not a "well-rounded and well-informed understanding of the facts" has a greater scope than the particulars of a single matter. That's where the "political" enters the arena. You are correct about that and I make no bones about it. I have issues with large corporate entities manipulating the legal system for their own benefit. But, the issues I have are not based on emotion. Having a background in Philosophy, I take the study of Ethics quite seriously. And Ethics, especially in the marketplace of common parlance, has been relegated to the back of the room for far too long. So long that I wonder if Ethics is still taught in the first years of law school. Yes, I do wonder...

[Lachlan09]

I used to live in Ethics - Chelmthford, Ethics

[Tobus]

MacMillan of Rathdown, thank you for posting those facts. A source would be nice, but I see no reason not to accept them at face value.

Do these facts change anything about the principles involved in the trademark case? Whether it's an officially registered charity or a regular business that is raising money for charity, I still don't see any justification for insinuating fraud.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

MacMillan of Rathdown, thank you for posting those facts. A source would be nice, but I see no reason not to accept them at face value.

Do these facts change anything about the principles involved in the trademark case?

The legal principles remain the same, ie: anytime that a company feels its rights to trademark are, or may be, violated it has the right to protect those rights.

Whether it's an officially registered charity or a regular business that is raising money for charity, I still don't see any justification for insinuating fraud.

You originally raised the issue of fraudulent practices, and I merely amplified your comments. Do I personally think Jeff McClusky & Associates have committed fraud? I doubt it. Mr. McClusky is, by all accounts, an honest businessman and probably way to smart to do anything that could come back to haunt him. Has there been a fraud committed in the reporting of the events concerning the trademark application by Jeff McClusky & Associates? I believe so.

In my book any person who sets out to purposely misrepresent facts to blacken the name of another person or company is committing a fraud, since their intent is to deprive that person or corporation of their good name by deception and dishonest practice. Since most of the so-called reporting has been woefully short on fact and extremely long on invective, distortion, and outright lies I would say that there is a pretty good case for the use of the word fraud.

[Tobus]

You originally raised the issue of fraudulent practices

Actually, you're the one who first brought up fraud in this thread, in post #28. And subsequent posts (like post #40), where you used the term "corporate identity theft" synonymously. All of my replies on the subject of "fraud" were in rebuttal to your contention that McDonald's is protecting their brand name to prevent such fraudulent 'identity theft'. And it seems clear that the idea of fraudulent use of the McDonald's name is not part of the issue here. They are not claiming she's trying to steal their name to trick people into believing she's affiliated with them.

The rest of the discussion, in terms of "fraud" has gone haywire.

[CDNSushi]

[MacKay71]

Really!

[Lachlan09]

Talking about “McDo” as they call it in the Phils, here in sunny Muscat, Oman we’ve been waiting for the opening of 3 BK outlets for the first time in nearly 10 years. Back then, there were BK’s in Muscat but they closed. The popular story went that it had something to do with rats found in a cooking area in one of the restaurants which caused a popularity nose-dive and doomed them to closure. Personally, I think that is a load of rubbish – in that case many more eating places here could be closed ! The truth was much more commercial in nature, a mix of bad Omani management and rivalries between sponsor/owner-clans.

Now that is history and they’re fitting out 3 new drive-in’s. This is where “The Oman Effect” kicks in again. The drive-in near us was due to open last September, but is still not ready. Only last week they put up the banner signage, 5 months later than planned. Fitting out a BK is hardly rocket science and should take weeks, not months. Either Omani ministry red-tape has got in the way, or the Omani owners are bad at paying contractors and suppliers (highly possible) or they even ran out of money giving them a cash flow problem for a while or else the Omani project managers are nigh on useless. – most likely a bit of all. Thank God they are so bad or else they wouldn’t need expats to run the big projects !

It shouldn’t bother me, as I’m on a diet and can’t eat BK anyway. It’s just the principle of gross inefficiency which rattles my cage and the wish to see BK kick McDo’s butt (I hate McDo but like BK - and Wendy's, Hardee's and Carl's Junior).