What is intellectual property? At its simplest, your intellectual property is something you've created with your mind. It could be a logo, product name, product, design or artistic creation.

Big corporations seek to pin down their intellectual property – after all, unique branding is part of what makes them so successful. If a smaller firm is using their branding, or something close to it, they're likely to pounce.

And because they're so well-remunerated, you might assume that Goliath always trounces David.

In this article, we take a look at some instances of little fish taking on the big fish – and winning.

Nissan vs Nissan.com

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Japanese car manufacturer Datsun rebranded as Nissan.

Little did they realise that they were treading on the toes of a man in Raleigh, North Carolina – Uzi Nissan, who had used his surname for several businesses. In 1991, he founded Nissan Computer Corporation and in 1994 registered nissan.com.

Nissan Motors wasn't happy – it accused Uzi of trademark dilution and cybersquatting and sued him for $10 million.

The result? Uzi Nissan came out on top, and the car company continues to use nissanusa.com as its American domain name.

McDonald's vs Supermac's

In 2019, McDonald's lost its exclusive claim to the "Mc" trademark.

This was the result of a lawsuit brought against the McGiant by Supermac's – the largest Irish-owned fast food restaurant chain in the Republic of Ireland.

McDonald's – referred to by Supermac's owner as "McBully" – claimed it had the right to own and trademark the "Mc" preface and said it wanted Supermac's to rebrand. Supermac's wanted to expand and McDonald's wanted to prevent it.

However, the European Union Intellectual Property Office ruled that McDonald's didn't have a watertight case – and it was forced to revoke some of its trademarks like "Big Mac". In the words of the Supermac's owner, "the Mc is back". Supermac's continues to operate to this day.

easyGroup vs Easy Pizza

Another legal tussle over a prefix took place in 2006 when multinational conglomerate easyGroup took legal action against pizza joint Easy Pizza.

easyGroup has a reputation for litigiousness – it has threatened legal action against ventures as diverse as a curry house, a driving school, a charity fundraising site and a TV series called Easy. In all these cases, easyGroup took objection to the use of the word "easy", which they considered to be trademarked.

However, in the case of Easy Pizza, the action was dropped when it became apparent that Easy Pizza had been using its name for longer than easyGroup.

The lawyer acting for Easy Pizza said: "easyGroup cannot claim a monopoly over trading names beginning with the word 'easy'" – and now offers a specialist service representing smaller firms sued by the conglomerate.

Bentley Motors vs Bentley Clothing

A 2019 High Court ruling found that Bentley Motors had infringed trademarks owned by a small family business in Manchester. The firm in question was Brandlogic, which owned the Bentley Clothing brand.

Founded in 1962, it was headquartered in Wembley, West London before moving to Manchester in the 1990s. It manufactures luxury clothes.

In 2017, the car manufacturer challenged the clothing brand, saying it had used the Bentley trademark for its own clothes range since 1920 – thus antedating Bentley Clothing.

But the underdog won. Not only has Bentley Motors been legally obliged to stop using the name Bentley on its clothing range, but it was also ordered to destroy its branded apparel.

Rhythmix vs Simon Cowell

Music is fertile ground for IP disputes – one of the most famous and longest-running court cases being the plagiarism suit brought against George Harrison for his song "My Sweet Lord".

In the case of Simon Cowell and Rhythmix, the issue was to do with a trademark.

The reality TV presenter gave the name Rhythmix to a girl group on X Factor and attempted to trademark it – despite it being registered to a children's charity based in Brighton. The charity sought legal aid and took to social media.

Eventually, the claim was dropped and the show bosses had to pay damages to the charity as compensation for the money it spent on legal fees.

In the end, the girl group didn't lose out either – they now perform as Little Mix and have sold 60 million records worldwide.

Dumb Starbucks

Sometimes, disputes never make it to court. This was the case with comedian Nathan Fielder's "Dumb Starbucks".

In 2014, Fielder put out an episode of his show Nathan For You, which focuses on his attempts to help struggling businesses with out-of-the-box solutions. These range from the whimsical to the off-kilter to the downright bizarre.

In the episode in question, he aimed to help a struggling coffee shop by rebranding it as Dumb Starbucks – and his comedic attempt got a lot of press coverage. Because of the media attention, Dumb Starbucks attracted a lot of visitors – but it was eventually shut down by the Los Angeles Department of Health Services.

Unlike easyGroup, Starbucks clearly decided that it had bigger fish to fry and decided not to press charges – but it did make a point of telling the press that Starbucks was a protected trademark.

They were less forgiving when it came to New Hampshire's family-owned Black Bear Micro Roastery. This small business was using the brand names "Mister Charbucks" and "Charbucks 33 Blend" for two of its coffees.

Starbucks claimed that the Charbucks name was a case of "dilution by blurring" – meaning that the smaller firm was trading on the name's associations and thereby damaging the mega-brand.

But after 10 years of legal wrangling, the United States Court of Appeals ruled that Black Bear Micro Roastery could keep selling Charbucks products.

So while big corporations often have the upper hand, it's not always the case. Still, it's worth keeping in mind that these lawsuits are far from fun for the underdogs, even if they come out on top.

Do you need advice on how best to protect your intellectual property? At Milners Law, we pride ourselves on being approachable, plain-speaking and experts in commercial law. Don't hesitate to contact us for a free consultation.