David v Goliath is a metaphor frequently used to describe instances where large multinational corporations take small companies to court often over trademark disputes. It is often believed by the public that the large companies use their wealth and influence to aggressively protect their brand.
Most recently, outdoor clothing brand Patagonia has threatened drag queen Pattie Gonia with legal action over their use of the trademark. In this case, public sentiment seems to side with the brand which has made repeated attempts to work with the drag queen. However, often in these disputes the large corporation suffers reputational damage no matter how solid its legal argument may be.
Here are four occasions when large corporations started a legal battle with David and lost the PR war.
Hugo Boss v Boss Brewing (and comedian Joe Lycett)
The situation: In 2019, a Swansea-based brewery applied to own the trademark of its name, something that would usually cost around £300. However, the fashion giant issued the brewery with a cease and desist letter attempting to prevent the company from owning that trademark.
The result: After months of negotiations, at a cost of around £10k in legal fees for Boss Brewing, the issue was settled. The brewery had to change the name of its Boss Black and Boss Boss beers. It also had to stop selling clothes.
The backlash: Spurred on by what he saw as an injustice, comedian Joe Lycett changed his name to Hugo Boss by deed poll, as part of a stunt for his Channel 4 show ‘Got Your Back’. He then launched a satirical ‘Hugo Boss’ support bandage product, hosting a launch party outside the fashion giant’s flagship London store.
Paralegal Chloe Fernandez wrote in a blog for law firm Boyes Turner at the time: “Lycett’s tweet has been retweeted thousands of times and the story has been picked up globally, which all goes to highlight the importance of striking the right balance when it comes to cease and desist letters.”
Oatly v Glebe Farm
The situation: In 2021, the multinational oat milk brand sued a family-run Cambridshire-based farm claiming their ‘PureOaty’ drink infringed on its brand. Oatly claimed the farm had infringed on five of its trademarks. It also claimed the farm had tried to ‘pass off’ its own product as Oatly’s.
The result: A High Court judge ruled in favour of the farm saying he did not see “any risk of injury to the distinctive character” of the Oatly brand. Judge Nicholas Caddick QC said: “It is hard to see how any relevant confusion would arise from the defendant’s use of the sign ‘PureOaty’.”
The backlash: The legal battle saw a number of social media petitions criticising Oatly gather thousands of signatures. One internet user also took the time to launch two foul-mouthed protest websites criticising the company, with one site prompting visitors to “confirm their dislike of Oatly”. At time of writing the site claims it has 731,061 “unique confirmers”.
The backlash was amplified by the company’s decision to sell a stake of its business to Blackstone Group in 2020. Critics have linked Blackstone to environmental concerns like Amazon deforestation, though the company denies this. Oatly was also accused of hypocrisy after having previously taken a stand against the dairy industry before bringing action against Glebe.
EasyGroup v EasyLife
The situation: In October 2023 EasyGroup, which owns and licenses the famous orange ‘easy’ brand to well-known companies like EasyJet and EasyHotel, sent a cease and desist to a pop group then known as Easy Life. The band had promoted their Life’s A Beach tour, in 2021 and 2022, with a poster showing a plane in the style of EasyJet’s orange livery but substituting the airline’s name for their own.
EasyGroup had previous for this, threatening legal action against ventures as diverse as a curry house, a driving school, a charity fundraising site and a TV series called ‘Easy’.
The result: In the end the band decided not to defend themselves in court. Frontman Murray Matravers told BBC News: “We simply don’t have the funds to access a fair trial in the high court. Not to mention the fact that this would likely rattle on through to 2025, and with this hanging over us we wouldn’t be able to release any music in the meantime. Our careers, and indeed our lives, would be on hold.”
The band played their final performances under the name on 12 and 13 October before announcing a rebrand to Hard Life in June 2024.
The backlash: Easy Group received a lot of condemnation on social media from many places including artists like Arlo Parks and Professor Green alongside MP Harriet Harman, who held a seat in the band’s hometown of Leicester, and MP for Cardiff West at the time Kevin Brennan who wrote on X: “How about supporting young artists rather than crushing them with corporate greed?”
McDonald’s v Supermac’s
The situation: Perhaps the biggest of our Davids, Supermac’s is an Irish fast food restaurant founded in County Galway in 1978. In 2015 it tried to register its name in the EU as a trademark for restaurants, with a view to moving into the rest of Europe. McDonald’s opposed the application arguing the name was too similar to its Big Mac burgers and would cause confusion among customers.
The result: The Irish chain won a partial victory in 2016, being granted the trademark for its restaurant name but not for many items of food and drink. The following year Supermac’s filed an application with the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to end McDonald’s exclusive use of the term ‘Big Mac’ in the bloc.
EUIPO partly upheld the application from Supermac’s in 2019, and in 2024 the European Court of Justice found in favour of the Irish brand, delisting Big Mac as a trademarked restaurant name and ending McDonald’s ability to use it on poultry products.
The backlash: Supermac’s founder Pat McDonagh branded the American company as a “McBully” claiming the result as “a significant ruling that takes a common sense approach to the use of trademarks by large multinationals. It represents a significant victory for small businesses throughout the world”.
Many rivals of McDonald’s took the opportunity to capitalise on the legal mishap. Burger King in Sweden launched a menu featuring ironically named items such as “Like a Big Mac, But Juicier” and “Big Mac wished it was”.
A spokesperson for McDonald’s told The Guardian: “The decision by the EU general court does not affect our right to use the ‘Big Mac’ trademark. Our iconic Big Mac is loved by customers all across Europe, and we are excited to continue to proudly serve local communities, as we have done for decades.”