In this week’s newsletter, we talk about a midnight theft at Mumbai’s Dadar, the Big Mac trademark, dark patterns and more.
If you’d like to receive our 3-min daily newsletter that breaks down the world of business & finance in plain English – click here.
A daring heist in Dadar
In the dead of night, a group of men walk quietly along the footpath connecting King Circle and Dadar TT. They survey the area for signs of human activity.
Nothing!
Satisfied, they quickly unload their tools — shovels, cable cutters, and spades — and begin their work. The only sound is the rhythmic digging, cutting through the silence of the night with a precision honed by repetition. Clearly, this isn’t their first time.
In just a few minutes, they uncover their prize. They quickly load it onto a getaway vehicle and disappear into the night.
Life resumes without suspicion the next day. The local Mumbaikars assume the usual municipal work is to blame for the dug-up path — a common sight in this area. However, when they discover no such activities were scheduled, the true nature of the midnight excavation comes to light. This was calculated theft.
But wait… what were the crooks looking for?
Hidden treasure?
Well, not quite. They were digging up cables. More specifically telecommunication cables. And on this occasion, they walked away with ₹7 lakhs worth of copper — the equivalent of a gold bar weighing 100 grams. If it weren’t for a few vigilant civilians and a complaint from MTNL (the telecom company whose cables were stolen), the heist may not even have drawn police attention. This could have been the perfect crime.
But alas! It wasn’t to be. The cops laid a trap for the enterprising thieves and apprehended them soon enough. Case closed? you ask. Well, not quite.
Sidenote: You can read more about the heist in this article from Hindustan Times.
Locking up a few thieves doesn’t mean there won’t be another midnight heist ever again. Telecommunication cables, power grids, transformers, grounding equipment, cell towers, railway signaling systems — this stuff is everywhere. And inside these public utility assets, you have metals like copper. Copper can be sold as scrap. The scrap is melted and then turned for a profit and it’s a thriving business opportunity.
The estimated loss due to cable theft in India is between $1.3 billion and $1.9 billion per year. And it’s only getting worse because copper prices are on the rise.
Copper is an excellent conductor of electricity and is used in a variety of applications. The demand is always strong. But this year has been pretty unusual. Copper prices hit a record high of $11,000 per metric ton on May 20, gaining 35% this year and many experts believe that this trend is likely to persist until at least 2026. No wonder thieves are targeting underground telecommunication cables.
But wait… Why are copper prices rising?
Well, the broad reason is this whole business with energy transition. Copper is used extensively in the coils of wind turbine generators. In solar photovoltaic (PV) systems (solar grids), copper is used in the conductive and grounding wires. It is an essential component in electric motors, batteries, and inverters. And it’s used in most kinds of energy storage devices. In short, Copper is indispensable if we are to move to a cleaner future. And since there is a certain degree of urgency surrounding this whole move, you can see why demand for copper is at an all-time high.
But there’s a supply issue as well. Take for instance Cobre Panama — a $10 billion mine that’s been out of operation since November. According to Bloomberg, the site produced nearly 1.5% of the world’s copper supply before it went idle. And it’s unlikely the supply is going to resume anytime soon. The government in Panama and the company running the mine have been unable to sort out their differences and they are now looking at closing the plant. So that was a big hit for the copper industry.
Then there is the Chinese collusion. Copper — the raw material was already hard to source last year. But then the smelters — the people that take the raw material and turn it into metal — have been scaling rapidly, hoping to capitalise on the clean energy opportunity. Unfortunately, they’ve been having to pay through the roof to source copper ore and they’ve been bleeding money. So some smelters in China got together and decided to collude (work together) and cut output to push the prices of the final metal even further. This they hoped would compensate for the rising raw material cost and shore up their margins.
And it did. The metal prices shot up and enterprising thieves in Mumbai suddenly got to work. The way the world works huh?
In any case, assuming that copper prices stay elevated, we have a big problem. Not just with thieves, because they’ll always be around. But with some of our ambitious ventures. India imports a lot of copper. Last year, the total bill saw a 20% jump — from ~₹22,000 crores to ~₹27,000 crores. And if we have to pay higher prices for copper, that also affects our aspirations to build electric vehicles and other renewable energy sources.
For now, we hope that the price rise is transient, and that new supply hits the global market soon enough. But if it doesn’t, we probably need to start looking at recycling efforts—gathering electrical, electronic waste, installing separating facilities and putting big money behind cleaning and purification operations. This could really help ease the burden.
We just hope that we do it with legitimately sourced copper. Not from some stolen MTNL cable.
McDonald’s doesn’t own the Big Mac anymore
McDonald’s is a trademark bully!
And it isn’t us saying this. It’s what Supermac’s, Ireland’s largest fast-food chain, told the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) or the EU’s trademark registration authority, while fighting to cancel the McDonald’s Big Mac trademark in the EU.
“How silly of Supermac’s!”, you might think. Big Mac is such a well-known trademark and everyone associates it with McDonald’s. So why would anyone want to fight to cancel it?
Well, if we were to put it in one word, we’d say ‘revenge’.
Yup! Close to a decade ago, Supermac’s wanted to register its name as a trademark in the EU, so that it could expand outside Ireland.
But McDonald’s decided to play spoilsport and threw a spanner in the works by opposing this request. Its argument was the clichéd “Hey, their name is too similar to our Big Mac burgers. So it could confuse our customers.”
And this meant that Supermac’s partially lost the case. It could keep its restaurant name but couldn’t use the Mac label to market the items on its menu.
It was sort of a predictable win too, simply because McDonald’s has been successful in winning the most bizarre trademark lawsuits globally in the past. Like its fight against P. C. Mallappa & Co., the Bengaluru based sanitaryware dealer.
In 1994 the American fast-food giant accused it of violating its internationally popular Golden M logo. And despite being in a completely different business field, it had to give up its logo in favour of McDonald’s. Courtesy: The Karnataka High Court felt that the similarities between the logos could confuse customers into thinking that P. C. Mallappa is somehow related to McDonald’s.
We know how oddly funny that sounds. But you can’t really challenge court orders unless you have deep pockets.
Supermac’s though, didn’t want to be like other small companies. It wanted to stand out from the crowd and stand up for other smaller entrepreneurs like itself. So it took on McDonald’s.
But here’s the thing. You can’t just fight a trademark lawsuit without proving a few basic things.
For instance, your trademark or logo shouldn’t be so similar that it confuses customers. Could consumers confuse a Supermac for a grand version of the Big Mac? Well, maybe.
Or you shouldn’t be dealing in the same kind of business. In Supermac’s case it obviously was, since it was a fast-food restaurant.
Even then, the type of items on your menu matter too. Say if a fast-food restaurant wants to use the word Mac or Mc to brand its Malaysian or Indian cuisine, which is starkly different from American food, it can. That’s what the Malaysian Federal Court decided when McDonald’s brought a trademark violation case against McCurry, a small Indian curry shop in Malaysia.
And finally, you have to make sure that you’ve registered your trademark before your opponent.
Now, if you look at all of these minute intricacies, it might seem like Supermac’s was obviously set to lose the case. But no. Supermac’s had done some great homework. Or rather some basic homework that probably no one else would think of.
It simply went digging to look for how genuinely McDonald’s was using the Big Mac trademark because that’s also an important factor in most global trademark laws. You can’t just register a trademark and go about claiming your exclusive right to use it unless you’ve used it enough.
Just look at how the Big Mac is marketed in India. The Big Mac essentially has a 100% beef meat patty. That’s the kind of image McDonald’s has portrayed for the Big Mac world over. But since most Indian regions are sensitive towards beef consumption, McDonald’s had to only restrict itself to other meats like chicken or mutton. And selling a non-beef version of it, but still calling it Big Mac wouldn’t make sense. That’s why McDonald’s calls this the Maharaja Mac in India.
So you could say that McDonald’s may not be genuinely using the Big Mac trademark in the country simply because it doesn’t have beef items on its menu.
Supermac’s stuck to a similar argument.
It told the court that McDonald’s wasn’t genuinely using its Big Mac trademark for its chicken burgers, drive through and take away services. That’s a clear violation of the EU’s trademark law which expects companies to continuously use a trademark for five years to prove that they’re genuinely using it. If not, another company can easily stand a chance to snatch that unused trademark.
And Supermac’s had a case in point to back this up too. Meat and poultry are considered different ingredients worldwide, and McDonald’s hadn’t stressed on the Chicken Big Mac enough in its menus across the EU. Even if it did, it didn’t have proof to show when it did, because sadly menus don’t have dates.
But yeah, McDonald’s could still use sales to prove its point. All it had to do was show how the trademark may have pumped up sales of its chicken burger. Fortunately, or unfortunately, it failed at that too.
And this meant that it couldn’t prove to the court that it was genuinely using the Big Mac trademark for its poultry products.
That folks, is how McDonald’s lost its exclusive right to the Big Mac in the EU.
So yeah, Supermac’s can call its chicken burgers Big Macs unless McDonald’s barges into a higher court with an appeal.
But until then, it will have to let Supermac’s bask in the glory of its vindictive victory, while the fast-food giant swallows its pride.
Today’s Discussion 
: Dark Patterns
Coined in 2010 by user experience (UX) designer Harry Brignull, Dark Patterns are tricks websites often use to intentionally confuse and nudge users into taking certain actions.
In fact, consumers are 2-4x more likely to be influenced into buying stuff when a website dangles such baits.
So, here’s some Dark Patterns to look out for you 
1/ False Urgency
When a website manipulates users into making a purchase/taking an immediate action by creating a false sense of urgency.
Eg: “Buy within the next 10 mins to get 10% off”, “Only 3 units left!”, “Exclusive offer ending soon. 1 hour left!”
2/ Subscription Trap
When websites make the process of unsubscribing/opting out an intricate maze you can’t navigate out of.
Eg: Hiding unsubscribe button, providing ambiguous & confusing cancellation instructions, requiring payments details to avail a free subscription/trial plan
3/ Basket Sneaking
When a website includes additional items in the cart during checkout without the explicit consent of the user.
Eg: Warranties added through pre-ticked checkboxes, travel insurance while purchasing flight ticket, subscriptions added while booking a singular service
4/ Confirm shaming
Employing guilt, fear or embarrassment to nudge users into making a certain preferred choice.
Eg: Phrases like “I will stay unsecured” when someone excludes insurance or “Charity is for the rich, I don’t care” when someone unticks the donation checkbox.
5/ Bait and Switch
When the outcome of an user action is deceptively swapped with an unwanted alternate outcome.
Eg: Showing a cheap & attractive product as Out Of Stock when clicked on and then offering a much more expensive alternative. Redirecting the ‘x’ button on a pop-up to a subscription page instead of closing it.
Have you come across any of these tricks? Let us know!
Finshots Recommends
This week’s recommendation is Zerodha Educate* podcast.
Tune in to understand trading, investing and personal finance; explained by some of the smartest people in the industry.
*Zerodha through its fund Rainmatter is an investor in Finshots.
And that’s all for today folks! If you learned something new, make sure to subscribe to Finshots for more such insights 🙂
Finshots is now on WhatsApp Channels. Click here to follow us and get your daily financial fix in just 3 minutes