McDonalds: Lovin’ Intent to Use Trademarks

Trademark Registration

ABC 7 out of San Francisco reports that McDonalds has filed a new intent to use trademark for “Lovin’ is Greater Than Hatin’.” And while a major corporation’s trademark filing is not necessarily news, it does demonstrate the importance of an intent to use trademark to corporate expansion strategy.

An intent to use trademark allows a company to test two theories: (1) that the trademark in question is distinctive and capable of registration; and (2) that the new trademark is a useful brand name for a new product. With minimal cost, an intent to use trademark application allows a trademark filer to test these theories and to determine whether a given mark is a viable name for a future product–or often a product currently in the works.

Intent to use trademarks, or trademarks filed on a 1(b) basis, go through the standard application process. The intent to use mark is substantively examined by an examining attorney and, if it passes the examining attorney’s scrutiny, a notice of allowance is issued. Once a notice of allowance is issued, an intent to use applicant must show, within six months of the issuance of a notice of allowance, that the applicant is using the mark in commerce in association with the sale of goods or services. In short, an intent to use application allows a company to test the registerability of a proposed trademark before even using it.

This can be helpful in product development. Through extensions, an applicant can obtain an extension of time of up to three years to file a statement of use in response to an intent to use notice of allowance. This allows a company to continue to develop a product without the worry that a competitor will steal its unique brand name during the research or product development phase. For this reason, intent to use trademarks, such as the new McDonald’s filing, and serve as a useful tool for protecting your trademark rights.

Extra, Extra!
Recent Posts

Can I Trademark a Non-English Word or Phrase in the U.S.?

Can I Trademark a Non-English Word or Phrase in the U.S.?

Trademark

Yes, as long as the proposed trademark meets the other requirements for registration. U.S. trademark laws do not require that only the English language can be used for trademarks. However, whatever the language, trademarks must meet the legal requirements, including functionality, distinctiveness, uniqueness, etc. For example, every trademark must function as a trademark in that […]

Read more about Can I Trademark a Non-English Word or Phrase in the U.S.?

California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act Declared Wholly Unconstitutional

California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act Declared Wholly Unconstitutional

Internet Law

In a new ruling, a California federal judge has declared the entirety of California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (“CAADCA”) to be unconstitutional. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.28 et seq. See media report here and the Opinion here. The case is Netchoice, LLC. v. Bonta, Case No. 22-cv-08861-BLF (US N.Dist. Cal, March 13, 2025). The CAADCA […]

Read more about California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act Declared Wholly Unconstitutional

Put Revision Legal on your side