‘Someone’s suing Hungry Jack’s’: Burger trademark battle heats up with new Big Jack TVC
Hungry Jack’s isn’t taking McDonald’s Big Jack trademark suit lying down, delivering a TVC which taunts the competitor.
McDonald’s began its attack on Hungry Jack’s earlier this month, alleging that the Big Jack burger was an infringement on the Big Mac trademark and that a supporting campaign only served to encourage comparisons.
But Hungry Jack’s has doubled down on its response in a new TV, saying Australians will have no difficulties telling the two burgers apart due to the Big Jack’s superior ingredients and bigger size.
Once again, so lame on BK’s part.
Their entire global marketing strategy centers around annoying Maccas and Cannes only ad campaigns. They are similar to the remora fish that attach themselves to the underside of sharks and hitch a free ride around the ocean – without Maccas they wouldn’t survive.
not so fast. a marketing strategy is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself. if HJ’s gets the most bang for its marketing buck from copying/free-riding/annoying Maccas, so be it,
Maybe so, but Maccas don’t own the rights to the word “big”.
I don’t think it’s because of the word BIG though? Thought it was because they said it was bigger than an American competitor
It’s an interesting point.
One argument is that it is a simple battle for brand awareness and that this sort of approach generates increased awareness of HJs – even if it is only achieved by leveraging it’s rival. You can tie yourself in intellectual knots debating who gets more out of this campaign: the challenger or the incumbent.
Which gets me to my other thought…
I wonder if this approach is more suited to a genuine, smaller challenger. I’m not sure that HJs is a true challenger brand and/or whether it benefits from positioning itself as such. Maybe they’d be better selling off their own merits.
I guess, at least, they’re having a go trying to do something.
HJ’s is a genuine challenger.
The aim here would be to get HJ’s into the fast food repertoire for more consumers with an increased penetration.
Consumer’s aren’t binary in their decisions. This looks to increase the probabilities of HJ coming into mind more often with a bit of brand salience, but with increased penetration comes actual increased purchasing propensities moving forward.
That’s how you market effectively… You use the opposition’s resources to influence your own success. Maccas suing burger King has done nothing but gain more attention to a burger no one is confused by. Maccas need to get over the fact that burger king simply does it better. And there’s no actual breach of trademark at all. Which is why burger king is able to confidently ignore their campaign. Without Maccas, not only would burger king survive, it would become the top dog in fast food as opposed to currently butting heads with a jealous contender.
Well said, I would not be surprised to see Macca’s try to sue businesses for using the word burger
https://www.goodfood.com.au/eat-out/news/big-jack-v-big-mac-taste-test-how-does-hungry-jacks-lookalike-burger-fare-against-maccas-20200905-h1qiwy
This ad was clearly the entire point from the minute HJs lodged the trademark application.
ps. this whole thing is clearly just a PR stunt
What Aussie wouldn’t know if they were in a Maccas or a Hungry Jack’s store/app? You’d have to be a complete moron to think you could order a Big Jack at Maccas or a Big Mac at Hungry Jack’s.
Whoever at Maccas decided to sue HJs has given them heaps of free publicity. Next thing you know you’ll be able to redeem your McOpoly tickets at HJs as well, which they’ve done in he past.
Good Aussie irreverence – take the Mickey out of Maccas until they get totally jacked off!
My daughter works at maccas. She says they frequently have people ordering whoppers.
People are stupid. (But I do agree this is a PR stunt regardless).
The Big Jack and Mega Jack are so clearly different from a Big Mac that implying the consumer has any confusion between the two is rediculius. Any claims that the consumer might be confused goes to belittle the general population as that are only vaguely comparable in appearance. No more or less than comparing a generic burger at TRO different fish and chip shops. Unless we’re saying that you only Macca’s are allowed to have burgers that look like burgers, what else is the lawsuit based on. Both burgers are different in appearance, taste and texture. In this consumers opinion a Big Mac tastes way better and is much better structured. But would I buy a Big Mac? No. Because it’s too small and not value for money. Would I buy a Big Jack? Yes! Not as a substitute for a Big Mac as they don’t taste at all the same. But because the value for portion size is worth it and it taste okay.
Macca’s doesn’t deserve some monopoly around what a burger looks like and I’d hate to see a precidence set that nobody can make burgers which look like burgers because Macca’s has a foothold over the appearance of a burger. What a joke.
Well said Joe!!!
McDonalds have been taking us for a ride with their shrinking portion sizes and increased prices. The Big Mac may as well be called the Mc Small.
If McDonalds focussed on their own services and increased portion sizes in Australia to the US size with comparable prices then they’d not lose any customers or have anything to worry about.
This is hilarious. Good on HJ for having the initiative/ smarts to promote their own (superior) burger on the back of Maccas. Dunno who the latter think they are !
How can you patent or monopolize the word BIG for starters ?
And as commented on here already this whole farce is stupidity on Maccas behalf. They are simply marketing for their biggest competitor.
About time Maccas were brought down a peg or two. They cannot expect their brand name to be “untouchable”.
At the end of the day … the Big Jack tastes heaps better anyway !!!
McDonald’s need to get over themselves… They have had monopoly (pun intended) over takeaway for too long. I hope Hungry Jack’s wins.
Maybe, but that doesnt change the fact that they copied one of McDonald’s most popular burgers and called it their own
Before all this there was the big boy burger combo at Bob’s. So can that chain sue McDonald’s?
Straight to the defensive.
McDonald’s have missed the perfect opportunity here. They could have easily turned this around for them by being just as clever/witty in a response.
A tit for tat sort of exchange would have been healthy for both brands and would have been thoroughly enjoyed by consumers. Especially given how grim and grey the news is today.
No reason why both brands could have benefited from clever, strategic one v one marketing.
Well said mate they are getting smaller and price going up and up but also they are completely different tasting burgers
This could work for both organisations.. if McDonalds hasn’t trade marked the “McWhopping” Burger they are missing out.