## Facts

- A U.S. fast-food franchisor owned and used the “McDonald’s” name and related marks worldwide and planned to enter the Jamaican market in the mid-1990s.
- A Jamaican businessman incorporated a local company named “McDonald’s Corporation Ltd” and opened a Kingston restaurant around 1994 using “McDonald’s” on signage, menus, and advertising.
- The franchisor sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from using “McDonald’s,” “McDonald’s Corporation,” “McD,” or similar names, and from passing off and trademark infringement.
- The local company cross-applied to restrain the franchisor from opening and operating Jamaican restaurants under the “McDonald’s” name pending trial.
- Evidence before the court indicated broad international fame for “McDonald’s,” with reputation reaching Jamaican consumers through advertising, travel, and media exposure.

## Issues

1. Whether the franchisor showed a serious question to be tried on passing off and trademark infringement arising from the defendants’ use of “McDonald’s” for a fast-food restaurant in Jamaica.
2. Whether a foreign trader’s reputation and goodwill, developed abroad but known locally, can support a passing-off claim absent prior local outlets or sales.
3. Whether the balance of convenience favored restraining the local restaurant from using “McDonald’s” or restraining the franchisor from using its own name in Jamaica pending trial.

## Decision

- The court granted an interlocutory injunction for the franchisor and refused the defendants’ cross-application.
- The defendants were restrained from using “McDonald’s,” “McDonald’s Corporation,” “McD,” or imitations in connection with their business, and from passing off or infringing the franchisor’s marks pending trial.
- The court found a serious question to be tried and held that the balance of convenience favored interim protection of the franchisor’s name and goodwill.

## Legal Principles

- Interlocutory relief may issue where there is a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience favors preserving rights pending trial.
- Passing off requires (i) goodwill, (ii) misrepresentation likely to deceive the public, and (iii) damage or likelihood of damage.
- Goodwill for passing off can be shown through trans-border reputation: local consumer recognition generated by foreign advertising, travel, and media may suffice even without prior local outlets.
- Use of an identical, well-known mark for the same type of services may strongly support an inference of likely confusion and misrepresentation.
- Where continued use risks harm to a famous mark’s goodwill and impedes imminent market entry, interim restraint may be favored despite disruption to the local user who adopted the name.

## Conclusion

The court issued interim relief preventing a local restaurant from trading as “McDonald’s,” holding that the franchisor’s internationally known reputation could found a passing-off claim in Jamaica without prior local outlets, and that preventing consumer confusion and harm to goodwill outweighed the defendants’ hardship pending trial.


McDonald’s Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp. Ltd., [1997] F.S.R. 200 (Sup. Ct. Judicature Jam. 1996)