Matt opened a restaurant called “McHealthy’s.” Attached to the building that con
ID: 362441 • Letter: M
Question
Matt opened a restaurant called “McHealthy’s.” Attached to the building that contained the restaurant, Matt also opened a car wash that he called “McDonald’s” with the advertising slogan: “We wash your car faster that it takes you to eat fast food.” Matt proceeded to hire an employee named Earl, who at the time was working for the famous McDonald’s worldwide fast food chain. Matt’s plan was to have Earl franchise his two businesses throughout the United States. At the time Matt hired Earl, Earl was under an employment contract with McDonald’s and that contract had a non-compete clause in it that that provided that if Earl left McDonald’s employ, he would not work for the franchising department of a food company seeking to franchise food operations/business anywhere in the United States for a period of one year. Earl ignored his contract with McDonald’s, including the non-compete clause, and went to work for Matt. Earl took from McDonald’s various marketing studies that other McDonalds employees had created that were marked “Confidential.” Earl also took from McDonald’s a list of McDonald’s locations throughout the United States that was also marked “Confidential.” Earl used both these documents to develop the franchising of McHealthy’s in the United States. Matt received a letter from McDonalds threatening a lawsuit. McDonald’s sues Matt. What will McDonald’s argue? What will Matt argue? How will the court rule on this case? Provide justification for your decision.
Explanation / Answer
McDonald's argument could be-
McDonald's can argued upon using the name of the famous food company name McDonand's for the name of car washing point by the matt which is an unlawful action in itself as someone could not be liable to use any name which has been already registered by someone else.he also used the style of the name "Mc" in the name of the restaurant.
McDonald's can also point out to about the hiring of the employee named Earl who was the employee of McDonald's and was under the job contract. It's not right to ignore the contract as it could be breach of the contract which is against the law.
McDonald's can sue to the Earl as well but theye Sue to the matt because Matt should have to be aware about the rules of using the name and fame of the brands and he should not have to hire the employee who was already in the job contract of any firm.
Matt's argument could be-
Matt's can say that he was unaware about the Earl's job contract at the time of the hiring to his shop.
He could also said upon the using of the name McDonald's is that,he used the name for the car washing point,not for the restaurant's name.anyone can use the name for different purposes but not for the same purposes.
Court will rule on this case as-
Whatever the arguments and statements were provided by the McDonald's and Matt.
At the first instance,
By the law,its unlawful to breach the contract which was ignored by the Earl, so he could be find guilty.
And now by using the name which was registered by a company for any purposes, its also breach of rule which was made for the registered name.Also Matt should not allowed to employ the employee of any other firm which was under the contract of job at the same time.he should not allow to his employee to use the secrets of the place where was he been in past.
In these ways, court can find the Matt and Earl guilty to the case and can punished them for such unlawfull things done by them.