Please help me to come up with an analytical summary of the trademark infringement article about McDonald's versus McCluskey at the following link: http://www.naturalnews.com/028891_McDonalds_trademarks.htm.
The article "McDonald's Attacks a Teen named McCluskey over Trademark Infringement" by David Gutierrez published in Natural News informs about the name of a Special Olympics-based fundraiser whose organizer has named after her last name, McCluskey, and has now the name of "McFest". The problem is Ms. McCluskey intended to trademark the name of the event.
The McDonald's corporation learned about this and responded by filing against it, citing that their corporation has had a history of using the "Mc" trademark to name its own products. The response of Ms. McCluskey is that she wants to trademark the event after her last name, and not after anything related to McDonald's. Moreover, she also claims that her event is not that well-known, for which it is unnecessary for the McDonald's corporation to feel threatened or alluded to. Neither McCluskey nor McDonald's plan to change their plans of action.
These news have to be analyzed from a strictly legal, and not an emotional, perspective. While both parties intend the best, it is McDonald's responsibility to protect its brand. Like their spokesperson Angie Yingling mentions in the article:
We believe the mark at issue, 'McFest,' is similar enough to our brand name and McDonald's famous family of 'Mc' trademarks that it's likely to cause confusion under trademark standards and/or dilute our valuable trademark rights.