McDonald’s and the “Mc” prefix: Recent developments in Malaysia trademark law
27 July 2026
Recent developments in Malaysian trademark law have revisited the scope of protection afforded to prefix-based branding, particularly in relation to the “Mc” family of marks associated with McDonald’s.
The earlier legal position in Malaysia was shaped by the Federal Court decision in McCurry Restaurant (KL) Sdn Bhd v. McDonald’s Corporation (2009). In that case, McDonald’s brought a claim in passing off against a local restaurant operating under the name “McCurry”. The federal court held that the claim was not established, finding that there was no misrepresentation. The court placed emphasis on the overall presentation of the business, including differences in branding, menu offerings, and market positioning, and concluded that the use of the prefix “Mc” alone was insufficient to give rise to confusion in the circumstances of the case.
In October 2025, a separate matter arose in the context of trademark opposition proceedings involving an application for registration of a mark incorporating the “Mc” prefix in relation to food and beverage services. The Registrar of Trademarks initially allowed the application to proceed to registration.
The decision was subsequently appealed to the High Court. Upon appeal, the High Court set aside the Registrar’s decision. The court found that the application mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion when assessed against McDonald’s existing portfolio of “Mc” prefixed marks.
In reaching its decision, the High Court considered the presence of multiple registered and used marks sharing the “Mc” prefix within McDonald’s brand portfolio. The court assessed the application mark in the context of those existing marks and determined that the similarity was sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion in relation to the relevant goods and services.
The developments reflect the application of different legal principles in passing off and trademark opposition proceedings. The 2009 Federal Court decision addressed the requirement of misrepresentation in a passing off claim, while the 2025 High Court decision applied the statutory test of likelihood of confusion under the Trademarks Act 2019 in determining registrability.
About the author
Law firms
