The Commerce Court in Jebal Lebanon (the third preliminary chamber) has rejected the suit filed by McDONALD Company against the owners of MASSIS restaurant, requesting that the latter be obliged to stop using the letter M in representation of MASSIS Restaurants, whereby this constitutes unfair competition.
The Court's decision stated:
"In the case whereby the claim is that the imitation of the letter (M): both parties, the plaintiff and the opponent are using this letter which represents the initial letter of their names, and as commonly used words , letters and numbers are not protestable unless they are used within certain forms and line frames, and characterized with innovation and novelty. Imitation will only exist if there is similarity in form and lines that may lead the clients to fall in confusion and illusion.
A mere glance at the letter (M) used by both parties shows the big difference in lines and design of the letters, particularly the letter (M) in the opponent's (Massis) mark is made of three columns connected by two arches as in the known Oriental architecture approach, while the letter (M) in the plaintiff's ( McDonald) mark is drawn in a cosmetically special elegancy (GRAPHISME STYLISE PARTICULIER).
On the grounds previously stated, comprehensive similarity does not exist, and as the notion of "the entirety is not divisible" (LE JUDIVISIBLE) exists, it is not possible to say that a normal person, of medium comprehension and attention, sound selection, without exerting an effort, will confuse the identity of the person whom he is dealing with.
Whereas, the confusion and uncertainty is impossible in the issue of the two marks, taking in consideration the international reputation the plaintiff enjoys and the quality of food and services provided, they are regarded as different in nature compared to what the opponent provides.
The case is rejected on the basis that the opponent's mark does not constitute an imitation of the plaintiff's mark, and the possibility of confusion is not existent and the allegation of illegal competition is refused.