McDonald’s Sues Over Trademark Battle With 'W' Logo

When a fast-food giant sees a simple letter on a rival’s logo, it doesn’t always take it lightly. In this case, McDonald’s took aim at a Chinese company’s ‘W’ logo — not for what it sold, but for how much it looked like McDonald’s own golden ‘M’. The legal clash wasn’t over burgers or fries, but over whether a restaurant’s logo could mislead customers or weaken a global brand’s identity.

McDonald’s claimed the ‘W’ logo — used by a Chinese company on services like restaurants and cafes — was a deliberate copy of its ‘M’ trademark and sought to have it completely canceled. The court battle focused on similarity, consumer confusion, and whether McDonald’s had the right to block the use of a simple letter due to its brand recognition.

The Origins of the Dispute

In 2001, a Chinese company led by Han Yihé applied to register the ‘WONDERFUL’ logo — commonly referred to as the ‘W’ trademark — for use on restaurant and related services. The logo featured a yellow ‘W’ on a red background, similar in style to McDonald’s iconic ‘M’ on a yellow background. Just two years later, in 2003, McDonald’s filed an objection with China’s Trademark Office, arguing that the ‘W’ was too similar to its ‘M’ trademark and would confuse customers. The Trademark Office rejected the objection.

McDonald’s Pushes Back Through Appeals

Dissatisfied, McDonald’s escalated the matter to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB). In 2010, the TRAB ruled in part in McDonald’s favor — it canceled the ‘W’ trademark’s registration for use on “restaurants, coffee shops, cocktail lounges, bars, tea houses, and similar services,” but allowed it to remain registered for other categories. Still, McDonald’s wanted the ‘W’ wiped out entirely and filed a lawsuit to that effect. That case went before the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court.

Key Arguments from All Sides

McDonald’s argued that its ‘M’ logo was globally recognized and that allowing a similar ‘W’ logo — especially in the food and beverage sector — would weaken its brand and cause customer confusion. The company presented media reports and promotional materials to show its prominence in China by 2001. It also accused Han Yihé of registering the ‘W’ in bad faith, claiming it was a direct imitation meant to challenge McDonald’s dominance.

The TRAB countered McDonald’s claims by stating that none of the evidence provided proved the ‘M’ logo was a well-known trademark as of 2001. It also reasoned that allowing the ‘W’ trademark in non-restaurant categories did not create enough risk of misleading consumers.

Han Yihé defended his logo as original and argued that the ‘W’ was not a copy of the ‘M’. He claimed it represented a bowl or container — the opposite of a door-like ‘M’ — and had its own distinct meaning. He pointed out that the alphabet has 26 letters, and just because McDonald’s used ‘M’ didn’t mean others couldn’t use ‘W’. Han also rejected the idea that ‘W’ was simply a rotated ‘M’, calling that interpretation arbitrary. He noted that other companies — including Motorola, Mars (M&M’s), and the Marco Polo Hotel — had successfully registered ‘M’ logos without issue.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the original ‘W’ trademark supposed to represent?

The ‘W’ trademark, known as ‘WONDERFUL’, was registered by Han Yihé’s company in 2001 for use on restaurant and related services. It featured a yellow ‘W’ on a red background. Han claimed the ‘W’ symbolized a bowl or container, not a rotated ‘M’, and had its own meaning separate from McDonald’s branding.

Why did McDonald’s object to the ‘W’ logo?

McDonald’s argued that the yellow ‘W’ on red closely resembled its own golden ‘M’ on yellow, creating a risk of customer confusion. Since McDonald’s is a globally recognized brand, it claimed the similarity could weaken its trademark and mislead consumers into associating the ‘W’ business with McDonald’s.

What did the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board decide in 2010?

The TRAB canceled the ‘W’ trademark’s registration specifically for restaurant, cafe, bar, and similar services in 2010 but left it intact for other categories. This partial cancellation led McDonald’s to file a lawsuit seeking full cancellation of the ‘W’ trademark.

Did Han Yihé admit the ‘W’ was copied from the ‘M’?

No. Han Yihé argued that the ‘W’ was not a copy or a mirrored version of the ‘M’. He stated it had a different meaning and shape, and rejected the claim that it was designed to resemble McDonald’s logo. He also pointed out that many other companies used the letter ‘M’ in their logos without legal issues.

What services was the ‘W’ trademark initially intended for?

The ‘W’ trademark was applied for use on services including restaurants, coffee shops, cocktail parties, bars, tea houses, and similar commercial service categories.

What was the final court outcome mentioned in the article?

The article states that the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court heard the case, but the final verdict was pending and would be decided at a later date.

Recommended FrontStreet Beans for Branding Loyalists

FrontStreet Coffee’s Ethiopia Humbera offers a bright, complex cup with floral and stone fruit notes — perfect for those who value origin identity, much like McDonald’s defending its iconic brand. For something richer, try the PWN Golden Mandheling with its deep chocolate and caramel tones. Both beans highlight the importance of distinct identity in a crowded market. Freshly roasted within 5 days · Orders placed before 17:00 ship the same day · Next-day delivery across most of Guangdong Province.