McDonald’s vs Hungry Jack’s: What’s The Beef? (2025 Updated)

Contents

Big Mac or Big Jack?

In early 2025, McDonald’s Asia Pacific filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court against Hungry Jack’s — claiming that its rival’s new burgers, the “Big Jack” and “Mega Jack”, are allegedly infringing on their intellectual property and closely mimicking the iconic “Big Mac” and “Mega Mac”. For more insights into how businesses can protect their intellectual property, see our discussion on protecting your IP with a trade mark.

The case brings to light a number of issues surrounding the use of trade marks to protect businesses’ intellectual property, including the importance of acting in good faith – a principle which, following lessons learned from past disputes, has been refined further in Australia’s legal framework in 2025. This dispute echoes historical conflicts, such as the well‐known battle between Hungry Jack’s and Burger King, showing that intellectual property struggles are as relevant today as ever.

A Trade Mark Backstory

When the American fast food empire Burger King sought to expand its franchise to Australia, it discovered that the name had already been registered by a local takeaway in South Australia. As a result, the Hungry Jack’s brand was born, allowing Australian franchisee Jack Cowin to open his store in 1971. This creative workaround not only launched a highly successful business but also set the stage for ongoing trade mark challenges.

Not long after the Australian trademark on the Burger King name lapsed in 1996, Burger King Corporation began opening its own stores across Australia, sparking a legal dispute between Hungry Jack’s and Burger King Corporation. Hungry Jack’s ultimately prevailed and absorbed the remaining Burger King stores in Australia—cementing its position as the largest fast food burger chain rivaling McDonald’s nationwide. The seminal dispute also brought the American legal concept of “good faith” into sharper focus, a standard that has since evolved and continues to influence cases in 2025.

Hungry Jack’s dispute history even paved the way for more rigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights. Its legacy serves as a reminder that protecting your trade mark isn’t just about securing a name—it’s about demonstrating ethical business practices to avoid allegations of infringing copyrights and misusing well-established brand identities.

The Big Mac Beef

So, let’s move on to the latest clash between McDonald’s and Hungry Jack’s.

In documents filed recently in court, McDonald’s claims that the Big Mac trade mark – a cornerstone of its brand since 1973 (with the Mega Mac being a recognised variant since 2013) – has “acquired a substantial and valuable reputation” in Australia. McDonald’s asserts that the Big Jack trade mark is “substantially identical with or deceptively similar to” the Big Mac trade mark, arguing that the resemblance is strong enough to confuse consumers.

Additionally, McDonald’s contends that the Big Jack trade mark is “likely to deceive or cause confusion” among consumers. It is also alleged that Hungry Jack’s registered the Big Jack trade mark in bad faith. Notably, the Big Jack trade mark was filed in November 2022 and accepted by IP Australia in February 2023, a move which is now being challenged under the updated commercial and intellectual property standards of 2025.

McDonald’s is asserting that Hungry Jack’s “deliberately adopted or imitated” the “distinctive appearance or build” of the Big Mac in creating its new Big Jack. Here’s why:

In its ingredients and advertising tagline, McDonald’s describes the Big Mac as: “two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions – on a sesame seed bun”.

In contrast, Hungry Jack’s has described the Big Jack as: “two flame-grilled 100% Aussie beef patties, topped with melted cheese, special sauce, fresh lettuce, pickles and onions on a toasted sesame seed bun”.

McDonald’s further alleges that Hungry Jack’s registered the Big Jack trade mark “in bad faith” – a claim linking back to the concept of dishonest or fraudulent commercial behaviour. For more guidance on how improper registration can be contested, see our resources on protecting your IP with a trade mark.

In response, Hungry Jack’s maintains that customers clearly recognise that the Big Jack and Mega Jack burgers are exclusively available at Hungry Jack’s, emphasising that the products differ markedly from McDonald’s offerings in size, taste, presentation and packaging. Hungry Jack’s also highlights that the Big Jack is distinct from the Big Mac by offering more meat, fresh onions and a larger overall size.

What Does The Law Say?

We’ve mentioned a few legal terms and some industry jargon – but what do they actually mean, and does any of it matter for your business? Here’s what you need to know.

In Australia, the laws surrounding trade marks are governed under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) and administered by IP Australia. Let’s now run through some of the key sections of the Act as they pertain to this case.

Is the Big Jack trade mark “substantially identical with or deceptively similar to” the Big Mac trade mark?

At the heart of the dispute lies the question of whether the Big Jack trade mark is too similar to the existing Big Mac trade mark. The court will need to determine whether the resemblance could mislead consumers into believing there is some connection between the two distinctive products. If found to be substantially identical or deceptively similar, McDonald’s could oppose the Big Jack mark under section 44 of the Trade Marks Act 1995.

Has the Big Mac trade mark “acquired a reputation in Australia”?

McDonald’s is also seeking to oppose the Big Jack trade mark on the grounds that the Big Mac trade mark has acquired a reputation in Australia under section 60 of the Trade Marks Act 1995. To successfully demonstrate this, McDonald’s must establish two key points:

That, as a matter of fact, the Big Mac trade mark has acquired a strong reputation; and
That because of its reputation, the use of the Big Jack trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion.

Given its long-standing presence in the market, it is relatively straightforward for McDonald’s to argue that the Big Mac trade mark has imbued significant reputation in Australia. However, establishing that the Big Jack mark will likely mislead consumers can be more challenging. For additional perspectives on this issue, check out our detailed analyses on trade marks and their protection.

Did Hungry Jack’s register the trade mark “in bad faith”?

McDonald’s also contends that Hungry Jack’s registered the Big Jack trade mark “in bad faith” – a ground for opposition found in section 62A of the Trade Marks Act 1995. Bad faith here refers to any conduct that is dishonest or undertaken with fraudulent intent. McDonald’s alleges that Hungry Jack’s was well aware of the established trade marks and, in a flagrant disregard for proper business ethics, deliberately replicated the look and feel of the Big Mac.

I Think Someone Has Infringed My Trade Mark: What Do I Do?

It is important to establish whether your trade mark has been infringed before taking formal action to protect your intellectual property. To do this, you will need to demonstrate two things:

That both the infringing trade mark and your own are registered in relation to, and used on, identical or similar goods and/or services; and
That the similarity between the two marks is sufficient to confuse consumers about the origin of the product.

Send a Letter of Demand

Once you have gathered sufficient evidence that your trade mark is being infringed, it is wise to seek legal advice from an intellectual property lawyer. Your lawyer may advise sending a letter of demand to the alleged infringer. A well-crafted letter should clearly outline your ownership of the trade mark, detail the infringing behaviour and set out a timeframe within which the infringer must cease the infringing activity and account for any damages. For guidance on choosing the right legal professional, see our article on how to choose a small business lawyer.

Often, a strong letter of demand is enough to resolve the matter without resorting to prolonged legal proceedings, thereby saving you both time and money.

Undergo Alternative Dispute Resolution

You might also consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, such as mediation, arbitration, or expert determination. ADR is frequently less expensive and more expedient than initiating court action, and it allows the parties to tailor the resolution process to their unique circumstances.

Take Them to Court

If all other remedies fail, you may need to bring the infringer to court as a last resort. Initiating court proceedings can be expensive, stressful and time-consuming, so it is crucial to obtain detailed professional legal advice before taking this step. Some of the court remedies you might consider include:

An interim injunction. In cases where the infringing activity is so significant that monetary damages alone would not suffice, the court may order the infringer to immediately halt certain actions. These orders are typically temporary and subject to further court hearings. It is important to note that if an interim injunction is later found to have been unwarranted, you may be liable for compensation to the opposing party.
A preliminary discovery. This court order compels the infringer to disclose critical information that could help you identify other instances of infringement.
An Anton Piller order. Essentially a search warrant, this order allows you to enter the infringer’s premises and seize items directly related to the infringing conduct.

In 2025, courts are increasingly considering the impact of digital branding and online presence when assessing trade mark confusion. This means that your business’s website design, social media activity, and overall online footprint can play a crucial role in determining whether a trade mark is deceptive or misleading. Keeping abreast of these modern developments is essential for any business keen to protect its intellectual property.

Want To Know More?

As you can see, there is a lot to know about trade marks and intellectual property protection – even the industry giants occasionally find themselves in legal skirmishes. Consulting a trade mark lawyer can be extremely helpful in ensuring that your IP is properly secured, thereby saving you potential headaches down the track.

At Sprintlaw, our experienced and approachable lawyers are here to help you navigate these complex legal issues. Whether you need advice on registering your trade mark, drafting a robust letter of demand, or initiating legal proceedings, our team is ready to assist. Learn more about our services in Intellectual Property and small business legal support.

Get in touch with our team at team@sprintlaw.com.au or call us on 1800 730 617 for a free, no-obligations consultation.

Kayleigh Yap

Kayleigh is a graduate in Arts and Law from the University of New South Wales. With an interest in human rights and intellectual property law, she has experience working in communications and marketing for small businesses and not-for-profits.

Do you need legal help?
Get in touch now!

We'll get back to you within 1 business day.