Mccurry vs mcdonald

I feel this story of the McCurry vs McDonald's is about infringement of trademark. The judgment is confusing because McDonald's has registered and protected the company's name. This judgment seems to say that the "Mc" prefix may be used more widely (by other businesses). In my opinion, this is a very unusual decision because the McDonald's company has registered the name. The McCurry restaurant does not only sell chicken but also all sorts of Indian cuisine and it does not seem honest to me that they are saying the "McCurry" stands for Malaysian Chicken Curry. It makes me think of is the trademark related to regional issue too? McDonald’s sued McCurry for trademark infringement violation because of the use of the “Mc” prefix. McDonald’s said it created “Mc” as a prefix and putting it with “Curry” misrepresented an association between McDonald’s restaurant and McCurry’s restaurant.
McCurry defended by saying that the “Mc” prefix is an abbreviation of : “Malaysian Chicken Curry” and is not a copy of, or reference to, the well known McDonald’s “Mc” prefix. Also, McCurry argued that “Mc” as a prefix is used around the world in surnames (last names) especially by Scottish people (e.g. McGregor, McDoogle, etc…). On September 7, 2006 Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled in favour of McDonald’s and against McCurry. The court said that the “Mc” prefix is a household name among children and that McDonald’s had the exclusive right to the “Mc” prefix. The court ordered McCurry to pay damages to McDonald’s corporation. McCurry appealed the decision to a higher Court.On April 29, 2007 the Appeals Court of the Kuala Lumpur Court ruled it was wrong to assume that McDonald’s had a monopoly on the use of the “Mc” prefix and that McCurry could use the prefix. The Court ordered that McCurry could use the name. McDonald’s appealed the decision to Malaysia’s Federal Court.On September 7, 2009 the Federal Court asked the lawyers for McDonald’s to rewrite or rephrase the questions they had raised in their appeal because the Court said the questions were unclear. However, before the lawyers could re-write the questions, the next day on September 8, 2009, the Federal Court ruled that McDonald’s lawyers wrote the questions for appeal incorrectly and dismissed the case. This means that they allowed the ruling of April 29, 2007 to remain in effect. Now, in Malaysia, other restaurants can use the “Mc” prefix, as long as they serve different foods than McDonald’s because in Malaysia the “Mc” prefix is no longer protected.
This is the link
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/SE%2BAsia/Story/STIStory_426885.html