Post a picture, entertain me!

Adamantium/vibranium/unobtainium based make-up. Duh.

Jonman wrote:

Adamantium/vibranium/unobtainium based make-up. Duh.

That sh*t must be hard to get off though.

Nevin73 wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Adamantium/vibranium/unobtainium based make-up. Duh.

That sh*t must be hard to get off though.

Maybe she's born with it.

Nevin73 wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Adamantium/vibranium/unobtainium based make-up. Duh.

That sh*t must be hard to get off though.

That's the point.

I am amazed at how much of this stuff they find. As I understand it they mine it from plot holes

maverickz wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Adamantium/vibranium/unobtainium based make-up. Duh.

That sh*t must be hard to get off though.

Maybe she's born with it.

Maybe it's Wolverine.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/3t5WsI4.jpg)

IMAGE(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51400202_10156051125131592_2268669075129368576_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=4348bbd6dc9a234aca929dd6af574cc2&oe=5CEBDEC1)

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
maverickz wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Adamantium/vibranium/unobtainium based make-up. Duh.

That sh*t must be hard to get off though.

Maybe she's born with it.

Maybe it's Wolverine.

IMAGE(https://media1.tenor.com/images/0c736c360dfad7824021b74b292a2efa/tenor.gif)

Praying Mantis Glamour Shot

Spoiler:

IMAGE(https://i.redd.it/qifm9qijrwe21.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/BmyJhwq.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/5ChmUQe.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/tcLxVO7.jpg)

EverythingsTentative wrote:

Praying Mantis Glamour Shot

Spoiler:

IMAGE(https://i.redd.it/qifm9qijrwe21.jpg)

Pretty sure I played them in MoO2.

Rykin wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/tcLxVO7.jpg)

I don't know why but I can't stop laughing at this.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/tHA4PrH.png)
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/llAWNwt.png)

That's not quite the whole story. McDonald's sued Supermac's when Supermac's tried to expand out of Ireland; it wasn't some "you over there doing nothing need to be taught a lesson" kind of thing. But the actual ruling itself is bizarre: whether or not McDonald's had a case, the EU court ruled that McDonald's had failed to show usage of the Big Mac trademark in the last five years despite the lawyers for McDonald's submitting a bunch of evidence that they were using the trademark. It's a totally weird situation, and I can't imagine it won't be appealed.

According to a discussion I saw here, the issue is that McDonald's had trademarked Big Mac as a name for both products and locations, and since they've never had any restaurants called Big Mac, the validity of the trademark was called into question.

I read something different. You can find the ruling in a link off of this article--it's the most Catch-22 thing I've ever seen: they told McDonald's things like "all those boxes that say 'Big Mac' you provided us with as evidence don't prove you sold any Big Macs because all those boxes were made by you." From the ruling:

Indeed, although the submitted packaging materialsand brochures depict the EUTM, there is no information provided about how these brochures were circulated,who they were offered to, and whether they have led to any potential or actual purchases. Moreover, there is no independent evidence submitted that could show how many of the products for which the packaging was used (if that is the case) were actually offered for sale or sold.

so if I'm reading it right, because all those sales figures you provided came from you, we can't trust you sold all that stuff in boxes that say "Big Mac."

I saw someone refer to it as a flat earth ruling, and it kinda feels like that, honestly. "Here's all the evidence we have that we sell Big Macs, and also you could just go buy one yourself down the street." "Yeah, says you, but what evidence do you have?"

Still, those Burger King statements are pretty f*cking funny.

I'm still confused where MCdonalds even thought a trademark violation was coming from. Does Supermac sell a Big Mac sandwich?

The ruling reads as bonkers, but the initial action also feels like a megacorp trying to leverage a trademark in an overly broad way in order to be anti-competitive.

It looks like Supermacs has a clone called the Mighty Mac.

IMAGE(https://www.supermacs.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Supermacs-Mighty-Mac-5.png)

I hate to defend mega-corp in this case, but this was a pretty silly ruling in that "Big Mac" cannot be attributed particularly to McDonald's signature burger.

McDonald's lost a case many years ago where they tried to shut down (if memory serves) a Chinese restaurant called McDonald's in the UK. Different cuisines - no confusion there! They deserved to lose that one. This one though? Not so much imo.

Also, now I'm hungry from browsing the Supermacs site.

Oh. Well i stand corrected, that looks like a Big Mac.

If that is the model burger from their menu I would hate to see what the actual burger looks like... oh wait probably just like the sad lopsided Big Mac you get at a real McDonalds.

Part of the back story on how McDonald's didn't help themselves in this fight:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...

Rahmen wrote:

Part of the back story on how McDonald's didn't help themselves in this fight:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...

Check the comments--that article is maybe not the most accurate when it states "In many respects, this is all a little crazy. McDonald's does indeed sell Big Macs in Europe. Why it couldn't be bothered to put forth some evidence of this beyond printouts of websites is beyond me."

Like the comments bring up, there's the question of exactly what sales data McDonald's did provide. What it seems to come down to is that they didn't have enough evidence which wasn't produced by their company.

Which, you know--seems very silly: if you're trying to establish that you frequently use a trademark, of COURSE the materials you provide will be produced by you--that's *literally* what it means to employ a trademark!

Where they may have shot themselves in the foot is if they didn't look into prior trademark cases where the same thing happened. Where even a little 'outside' evidence is necessary no matter how much 'inside' evidence is provided--like I said in a comment above and linked to, that seems to be the crux of the matter. If a bunch of people lost trademarks in the past with only 'inside' evidence, ignoring that is where they screwed up.

A half-eaten Big Mac left in the box on the table of one of their restaurants may have been evidence more acceptable to this court than whatever they provided!

Then again, is this a court that even gives weight to precedent? Like, maybe the lawyers did look at prior cases, but this court was just like 'we're a civil court, so meh'.

It's still funny that they submitted a printout of a Wikipedia article though

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/O3aQX4z.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.redd.it/hynbk33im7f21.png)

Loch Lake in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado.

IMAGE(https://preview.redd.it/4111jivtm7f21.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=5dd1f715088bae7a8641a6c191d32bbb9a484788)

Loch Lake? Really?

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Loch Lake? Really?

It's the lakiest

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Loch Lake? Really?

Aye yes.