Details have been revealed of the McDonald's legal team's case against the use of the name Supermac's in Australia.

It argues that it would be "likely to deceive or confuse consumers" - and give them the impression that the chain's products are being provided by McDonalds.

Lawyer Khajarque Kortian of Spurson & Ferguson, an intellectual property company in Australia, is working with McDonald's.

He says that Supermac's name would give the implication that the, "goods and services … [are] either provided by or on behalf of the opponent (McDonald's) or its associated entities or that those goods or services were provided either under licence or with the sponsorship or approval of the opponent or its related entities."

A letter dated March 2 cites previous cases where the US chain has successfully argued against competitors using a 'Mc' or 'Mac' prefixes, including - 'McFresh,' 'MacCoffee,' 'McSlider,' 'McKebabs' and 'McSalad.'

These cases successfully argued that McDonald's intellectual property was violated - without the use of a specifically registered trade mark.

The case will be decided by an administrative decision by the Australian government's intellectual property service.

Supermac's intended to open an outlet at Bondi Junction, Sydney - and a second restaurant in Perth. These plans are now on hold.

The Irish firm also faces a legal challenge from McDonald's regarding the use of the name in the EU as the company explores the possibility of opening UK outlets.

The Galway-based company's managing director, Pat McDonagh initially described McDonald’s objection as 'spurious' - citing the fact that both brands have co-existed in Ireland since the 1970's.

He adds: "The Supermac’s name was a most obvious choice for our first restaurant when it was given to me as a nickname during a gaelic football match I played with my secondary school Carmelite College."