By John Q. Hosedrinker 
McDonald’s has applied to Russia’s Federal Service for Intellectual Property to register its trademark, a move mirroring Coca-Cola’s similar action in 2024. The application, filed in December 2024 and now accepted, covers fast food, beverages, restaurant services, and delivery. This action is reportedly to safeguard the company’s intellectual property rights within the Russian market.
Read the original article here
McDonald’s registering its trademark in Russia is a complex issue with various interpretations, ranging from cynical to pragmatic. At first glance, it seems counterintuitive. After all, McDonald’s famously withdrew from Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, and its restaurants were subsequently rebranded as “Vkusno & tochka,” or “Tasty & that’s it.” This seemingly straightforward withdrawal leaves many wondering why McDonald’s would bother registering its trademark now.
One perspective suggests this is a purely defensive maneuver. The casual theft of intellectual property is rampant in Russia. Registering the trademark proactively prevents any opportunistic Russian company from seizing the McDonald’s brand and capitalizing on its name recognition, potentially even using it to launch a competing fast-food chain. This could be viewed as a preemptive strike to safeguard their intellectual property rather than a sign of an impending return to the Russian market.
However, another angle presents itself: the possibility of a future return to Russia. The strategic registration could be a key step in laying the groundwork for a potential re-entry into the market. Perhaps McDonald’s is waiting for the right moment, hoping for a shift in the geopolitical climate or some other change that would make doing business there more viable. This move, then, might be positioning them for eventual re-establishment, ensuring their brand isn’t lost in the meantime.
The comments also highlight the broader issue of trademark protection and its importance in the global business landscape. The experience of other companies, such as the ongoing legal battles involving Burger King’s name and Supermac’s in Europe, underlines the significance of proactively protecting trademarks. The story of Supermac’s successful defense against McDonald’s’ attempt to claim the “Mc” prefix serves as a cautionary tale. It reminds us that the cost of inaction can be high; neglecting trademark registration can lead to lengthy, expensive legal fights and even loss of the brand itself. The situation with Duracell and Energizer’s bunny underscores this, showing how a failure to protect a trademark can hand a competitor a huge advantage.
Some speculate that this move might be connected to former President Trump. The suggestion is that his purported fondness for McDonald’s, combined with the idea that he might seek refuge in Russia, is somehow involved. While this element is less likely to be a driving force behind the decision, it’s clear that the complexities of international relations and political figures influence perceptions of corporate decisions.
Ultimately, the reasons behind McDonald’s trademark registration in Russia remain somewhat ambiguous. It’s likely a multifaceted decision, driven by a blend of defensive strategy, potential future plans, and general corporate caution. While a boycott of McDonald’s continues for some, others see little impact from this move. The fact remains that protecting a globally recognized brand is crucial, irrespective of immediate business intentions within a particular nation. The decision reflects a commitment to long-term brand security. This is particularly relevant in a market like Russia, where the rule of law can be unpredictable. In short, McDonald’s is playing it safe, regardless of whether or not they plan to sell Big Macs on Red Square anytime soon.