# The "Moo Duk Kwan" trademark



## TrueJim (May 6, 2016)

There was an interesting edit made to the Taekwondo Wiki last evening, regarding the article on Moo Duk Kwan. An anonymous editor (I allow those, but I review all their edits of course) added this link Martial Art Instructors Hit With $115,560 Judgment - Martial Art Fraud and this Martial Art Instructor Charged and Arrested For Trademark Counterfeiting - Martial Art Fraud Those two articles look really well-referenced at first blush, but when you click on their internal links, the two articles pretty much just go back-and-forth referencing each other over and over again.

As I understand it, this organization United States Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation® - A 501(c)4 Nonprofit Members' Organization since 1976 trademarked in the U.S. the name "Moo Duk Kwan" and the "punching fist surrounded by laurels" logo back in 1976. (Trademarks generally only apply in the country in which they were obtained -- if you want to trademark something in other countries, you have to do it on a country-by-country basis, generally.)

Then last year that organization successfully enforced their trademark against a New York instructor of Korean descent who (it seems) was teaching taekwondo and issuing certificates that had the name Moo Duk Kwan on the certificate, and bore the "punching fist surrounded by laurels" logo.

When I first read this, my initial reaction was, "Yah, you shouldn't be using somebody else's trademark and logo." But then after I had pondered this for a minute, I thought: Did this Korean gentleman even *know* he was using somebody else's trademark and logo? I mean, the name Moo Duk Kwan is commonly used at schools all around the world, and the "punching fist surrounded by laurels" has been around for a long time.

The referenced articles claim the certificates are "counterfeit" and that the man's students felt "defrauded" by the "fake" certificates, but of course none of those claims appear elsewhere (like in the limited court documents I've been able to find so far)...and the people writing the article have a vested interested in slanting the story (since they are the trademarking organization).

Does anybody know anything more about this case?  How do you feel about this notion of trademarking the name "Moo Duk Kwan" and the fist-and-laurels logo?


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 6, 2016)

I have no "Feeling"  since it is not my realm vis a vis MDK, but the typical procedure is to send a cease and desist letter before proceeding with suit. 

If that were done and the conduct continued, then the person deserves to get wacked with a judgement.


----------



## TrueJim (May 6, 2016)

Doing a little more googling...

I guess the $115K judgement was against this father & son team: Father and Son - Robert Kovaleski and Eric Kovaleski They appear to be legitimately a part of the Moo Duk Kwan heritage; I think this is their school's Facebook page Master Kovaleski Karate USA which refers to their art as "karate" but also makes mention of Tang Soo Do in some places.

You're right of course about the cease & desist and all...but still, it seems a shame that people who are legitimately part of the Moo Duk Kwan heritage can't use the name "Moo Duk Kwan" in the U.S. just because some other people who had nothing to do with the original founding of Moo Duk Kwan were clever enough to be the first to trademark the name here. 

With regard to the fellow who was arrested (Yoon, Sung) for "counterfeit" certificates, there seems to be less information out there. The "karate fraud" website lists the District Court case number...I guess I should get a PACER account if I'm that curious.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (May 6, 2016)

This issue has came up on the threads before, I'm trying to track down the thread(s).



MBuzzy said:


> There were a number of copyright battles in which the US Soo Bahk Do Federation attempted to prevent the Tang Soo Do schools who had separated from the federation for one reason or another from using the name, forms, logos, intellectual property, etc.  At the center was the name and logos, many of the schools who split off continued to use the name Moo Duk Kwan and the Federation logo.  The Federation was interested in ensuring that there was a clear delineation between Soo Bahk Do and Tang Soo Do.  Both of which being the art passed down from Hwang Kee, but following his death, the Federation was taken over by his son, HC Hwang, who maintains full control of the name, logos and intellectual property of his father.  Many of the TSD schools who left have very high ranking masters who were close to Hwang Kee and went their separate ways to teach their interpretation.
> 
> In the end, it was ruled that the words "Tang Soo Do" could not be copyrighted, since they are as common and general as the term "Karate" (esp. since they are a direct Korean translation of the Hanja characters for Karate).  Therefore, the name Soo Bahk Do was used in its place, but the Moo Duk Kwan remains sole property of the Federation (although Moo Duk Kwan Tae Kwon Do also uses the name, since they split off duruing the Kwan unification in 1940's/50's Korea).
> 
> As for the rest of the stuff, the logo can only be used by the federation in its exact configuration.....but the forms were ruled to be "dance movements" also general and common, such as walking.  Since they are simply a combination of movements, they cannot be copyrighted.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (May 6, 2016)

As I understand it, the exact emblem of the Moo Duk Kwan (including the Moo Duk Kwan characters at the bottom) is what is copyrighted.  Because the Moo Duk Kwan split in the unification process into Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan and Moo Duk Kwan Taekwondo, the characters under the fist between the two are slightly different.  The emblem that our association uses is Moo Duk Kwan Taekwondo, and the characters under the fist read Tae Moo Kwon, not Moo Duk Kwan.  

I'm not entirely sure if that protects us from litigation, but to my knowledge we've never received any cease and desist orders.  

It is unfortunate, no matter, that any lineage of the Moo Duk Kwan Tang Soo Do/Soo Bahk Do that isn't active within the organization that copyrighted the name and logo cannot display the Moo Duk Kwan emblem.  

While it may be legal, I don't think that it is ethical.  There are so many schools/teachers that earned their rank from a Moo Duk Kwan black belt that are not directly affiliated with the U.S. Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation.  If my teacher taught me Moo Duk Kwan TKD, TSD, or SBD, I feel I should be able to both acknowledge and display proudly the "style" I practice.  

But I suppose that's just my opinion, and it doesn't negate the law.


----------



## dancingalone (May 6, 2016)

There's a Facebook group that had more detailed discussions on the subject when the litigation was active.  I did little more than skim at the time because the topic didn't interest me, but I gather there was some controversy over the origins of the fist logo in Korea, something that partisans that supported the Kovaleski side believe the judge did not pay enough attention to.

Kinda a lot of drama if you ask me over a simple logo that 99% of Americans attach no significance to.  Oh well.  I doubt it will be litigated further.  $115,000 is a lot of money in the martial arts world where the bulk of the operators are very small.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (May 6, 2016)

Yeah, Master Dan Segarra had a lot of info on that particular case.  I can't remember if it was on here or on a fb group, but I remember him having a lot of insight due to his relationship with H.C. Hwang and the Kovaleskis.


----------



## dancingalone (May 6, 2016)

SahBumNimRush said:


> Yeah, Master Dan Segarra had a lot of info on that particular case.  I can't remember if it was on here or on a fb group, but I remember him having a lot of insight due to his relationship with H.C. Hwang and the Kovaleskis.



It was on his FB group.  Master Segarra gave a run down of his testimony in the case as an expert on MDK history though the opposing counsel tried to minimize his status as a authoritative figure (per M. Segarra).  I'd post a link if Facebook's search feature wasn't so terrible.


----------



## TrueJim (May 6, 2016)

Just as an FYI, the original edit made to the wiki  by the anonymous user was fairly heavy-handed. They changed the _opening_ paragraph to describe the trademark of the name (which is a funny lead for an article like that), and made it _sound_ as though anybody anywhere using the name would be violating their trademark. That's when I started doing a little googling, moved the edits to a separate paragraph at the end of the article, and modified the prose to make it clear that his only applied in the U.S., and only to that name and logo specifically. (Like, you can still call yourself Tang Soo Do without violating their trademark.)


----------



## andyjeffries (May 9, 2016)

I personally think it's disgusting, dishonourable and should be cause for Kukkiwon dan revocation of the holders of that copyright.  To do this is absolutely awful. People legitimately have MDK rank/membership, get certificates from the world HQ and then are open to suit because some "savvy businessman" decided to copyright something he didn't invent? Honestly, it ranks right up there with issuing fake Kukkiwon certificates in my mind.


----------



## WaterGal (May 12, 2016)

This seems pretty questionable, though I'm not sure what can really be done about it.  I guess some Moo Duk Kwan guys would have to sue this Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation and prove that the logo wasn't theirs to trademark in the first place.


----------



## TrueJim (May 12, 2016)

WaterGal said:


> ...I guess some Moo Duk Kwan guys would have to sue this Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation and prove that the logo wasn't theirs to trademark in the first place.



It's an interesting question. I'm not sure that suing the Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation would be successful, even if one tried.


*Option 1:* Attacking the trademark on the basis of it being a _generic_ term:

As I understand it, you can't trademark _generic_ terms except when _outside_ the context of their current usage. So for example, Apple Computers can trademark _Apple_ as it applies to computers (since computers aren't a type of fruit), and the Beatles can trademark _Apple_ as it applies to music, but Joe's Fruit Company can't trademark a type of apple and call it _Apple (tm) _-- because in the latter case it's a generic term that's being used within that term's normal context (i.e., fruit).

I think? you'd have a difficult time convincing a judge that "Moo Duk Kwan" is a generic term? We here in MartialTalk might consider it to be a generic term, but I'm not sure a judge would agree.


*Option 2: *Attacking the trademark on the basis that somebody else is already using the same trademark:

As I understand it, this only applies within a single country. For instance, if I trademark the term WaterGal in France, that gives me no protection in the U.S., and vice versa. A different person in the U.S. could start their own company called WaterGal and it wouldn't violate the French trademark at all (and vice versa).

So unless the Moo Duk Kwan of South Korea had bothered to register their trademark in the U.S. (which presumably they hadn't) they would have no recourse now I think in the U.S.?

Side note: I think there have been some cases where Big Corporations _have_ been able to crush little-companies on trademark, like that poor guy named Uzi Nissan who got stomped on by Nissan Motor Company -- but that takes some deep mojo to accomplish.


*Option 3: *Attacking the trademark on the basis of it being an _offensive_ term:

You can't trademark offensive terms, but presumably none of us consider the term "Moo Duk Kwan" to be offensive.  As an aside though, this is what happened to the Washington Redskins, since recently the U.S. PTO decided that the word "redskins" is offensive.



Upshot: I think what Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation is doing is probably perfectly legal...it's just extremely _tacky_.  

The Moo Duk Kwan's best bet would probably be to just see if they can _buy_ the trademark from the Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation. Shall we start a crowdfunded campaign on their behalf?  ;-)


----------



## dancingalone (May 12, 2016)

I'll play Devil's Advocate:  We are aware right that the Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation is headed by Hwang Kee's son, HC Hwang?  Should primogeniture play some role here?  What would Hwang Kee's wishes have been in this respect?  Do his feelings matter if they could somehow become known?


----------



## TrueJim (May 12, 2016)

dancingalone said:


> What would Hwang Kee's wishes have been in this respect?  Do his feelings matter if they could somehow become known?



That's a great question. If a bunch of schools in the U.S. have a Moo Duk Kwan heritage and want to put the Moo Duk Kwan name on their school-issued dan certificates, should they be allowed to (by virtue of their heritage) or should only the estate of Hwang Kee have legitimate use of that name.


----------



## dancingalone (May 12, 2016)

TrueJim said:


> That's a great question. If a bunch of schools in the U.S. have a Moo Duk Kwan heritage and want to put the Moo Duk Kwan name on their school-issued dan certificates, should they be allowed to (by virtue of their heritage) or should only the estate of Hwang Kee have legitimate use of that name.



When JC Shin left Hwang Kee's organization back in the eighties (over various disagreements (some of which had to do with leadership - Shin was much more senior than HC Hwang, but he didn't have the benefit of being a blood relative), it's my understanding that he deliberately avoided using the MDK name and logo when he founded the World Tang Soo Do Association.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 12, 2016)

dancingalone said:


> I'll play Devil's Advocate:  We are aware right that the Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation is headed by Hwang Kee's son, HC Hwang?  Should primogeniture play some role here?  What would Hwang Kee's wishes have been in this respect?  Do his feelings matter if they could somehow become known?



It's unfortunate that more of the founders never provided for a succession on their organizations.
As a father, it would be understandable if he wanted his son to inherit, but as a martial artist, it would be understandable if he wanted his senior student to inherit. Of course, then you get into arguments about seniority. Two of his top three students stayed with the KTA and the unification movement, and GM KANG, Ik Lee was chosen as head of the TKD MDK. It could be argued that he remained senior to any later student of GM HWANG, Kee, even though he didn't have anything to do with SBD MDK.
We've never been hassled by the SBD MDK people, but our logo specifically refers to TKD MDK.
I'd agree with TrueJim - what they're doing seems to be legal, at least by US law, but it does seem tacky. It is also entirely in keeping with the attitude displayed on their web page, which (as I recall - it's been a while since I wandered their web spaces...) spends a fair bit of space declaring that SBD MDK is the "only" legitimate MDK.


----------



## mgotangsoodo (Mar 18, 2017)

andyjeffries said:


> I personally think it's disgusting, dishonourable and should be cause for Kukkiwon dan revocation of the holders of that copyright.  To do this is absolutely awful. People legitimately have MDK rank/membership, get certificates from the world HQ and then are open to suit because some "savvy businessman" decided to copyright something he didn't invent? Honestly, it ranks right up there with issuing fake Kukkiwon certificates in my mind.



You do realize that the The U.S. Soo Bahk Do Federation (based in NJ USA) and the World Moo Duk Kwan (based in S. Korea) are headed by the same individual, HC Hwang. There are also national federations loyal to the World MDK throughout Europe, S. America, and SE Asia. In addition, there is no affiliation whatsoever with the Kukkiwon and the mere fact that the World Moo Duk Kwon exists is because GM Hwang Kee choose not to go along with the unification. Therefore there is no revocation b/c there is no acknowledgement of authority. In addition, people with legitimate rank in MDK are able to practice and advertise that rank but they may not advertise that they are authorized to confer a legitimate MDK rank on any other practitioner without the express acknowledgement of the World Moo Duk Kwan, the current holder of Hwang Kee's book of Dan numbers (Dan Bon). The only Dan Bon with direct lineage to this original authoritative source is conferred by a member organization of the World MDK. Believe me, these people are not "savvy businessmen", they are of a direct lineage to the founder and are enforcing their right to protect their name/brand from being watered down.


----------



## TrueJim (Mar 19, 2017)

mgotangsoodo said:


> ...they are of a direct lineage to the founder and are enforcing their right to protect their name/brand from being watered down.



But they're not the ONLY direct lineage, right? There are other direct lineages of Moo Duk Kwan as well. Doesn't it seem unreasonable for one lineage of Moo Duk Kwan to tell other lineages of Moo Duk Kwan that they're not allowed to use the name Moo Duk Kwan?


----------



## mgotangsoodo (Mar 19, 2017)

TrueJim said:


> But they're not the ONLY direct lineage, right? There are other direct lineages of Moo Duk Kwan as well. Doesn't it seem unreasonable for one lineage of Moo Duk Kwan to tell other lineages of Moo Duk Kwan that they're not allowed to use the name Moo Duk Kwan?



"other direct lineages" in the sense that they left the founder and his school and took (some might say stole) the name. If I have a degree from the Harvard, I can tell anyone I want that I have a degree from Harvard and I put it on my resume, but I cannot open my own school, call it "Harvard II" and print the Harvard seal on my diplomas. Harvard would have every right to come after me with their army of well paid lawyers and make me stop.

You can say "in the tradition of the Moo Duk Kwan" in your byline but you cannot claim to be the Moo Duk Kwan, that trademark belongs to it's owner and whomever they allow to use it. So, just because your teacher was a member of the Moo Duk Kwan you do not have the right to use the name unless you are yourself a member: follow quality control, teach the curriculum, pay dues, respect the hierarchy, etc. If for any reason you deem these unfair you have the right to leave but you absolutely do not have the right to take the intellectual property of your teacher and their organization and use it for your own gain.

Remember, this does not prevent people from telling others they have credentials certified by the Moo Duk Kwan or allow them to wear the patch. They may not however use the name or the iconography for their own personal gain.

The Moo Duk Kwan is a brand, the sheer fact that people advertise their Dan Bons and want to use the name is evidence of the power of that brand. Allowing others to use that brand without authorization or quality control has the strong potential of cheapening that brand and making it worthless by eroding confidence in it.


----------



## msmitht (Apr 11, 2017)

Wow. Entirely too much effort given to a piece of paper on a wall. So glad I only do BJJ now. We have a gi and a belt. Lineage is easily traced and no one cares about a certificate.


----------



## TSDTexan (Apr 18, 2017)

TrueJim said:


> There was an interesting edit made to the Taekwondo Wiki last evening, regarding the article on Moo Duk Kwan. An anonymous editor (I allow those, but I review all their edits of course) added this link Martial Art Instructors Hit With $115,560 Judgment - Martial Art Fraud and this Martial Art Instructor Charged and Arrested For Trademark Counterfeiting - Martial Art Fraud Those two articles look really well-referenced at first blush, but when you click on their internal links, the two articles pretty much just go back-and-forth referencing each other over and over again.
> 
> As I understand it, this organization United States Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation® - A 501(c)4 Nonprofit Members' Organization since 1976 trademarked in the U.S. the name "Moo Duk Kwan" and the "punching fist surrounded by laurels" logo back in 1976. (Trademarks generally only apply in the country in which they were obtained -- if you want to trademark something in other countries, you have to do it on a country-by-country basis, generally.)
> 
> ...



The fist and laurels logo isn't trademarked.
The "gold fist" and laurels is.￼

The following images don't violate their gold fist trademark:



 


 


 



 

I won't post the images that are trademarked. (Per MT's TOS)

Also alternative spellings that a phonetically the same fall outside of their trademark


----------



## Richard Duncan (Mar 29, 2019)

Unfortunately, TSDTexan is providing inaccurate and misleading information that could encourage readers to commit trademark infringement if they fail to conduct their own due diligence.

The Moo Duk Kwan® Fist and leaves logo was created by Hwang Kee and is a Moo Duk Kwan® registered trademark in the USA (USPTO: 1,446,944 and 3,119,287) and other countries. The USA marks have achieved "incontestable status."

It seems to be a common misconception that changing a few elements or colors of a registered trademark then makes it legal to use the tweaked design without a license or authorization from the owner.  Wrong.  Try tweaking a Coca Cola trademark and then using it on your own line of soft drinks and see how that works out for you.

Infringing a trademark is a bit like speeding. You may exceed the speed limit and get away with it for a long time, but when you get caught, you are busted. Claiming that because you have been speeding for a long time before without being caught does not make speeding legal and is not a legitimate defense. Try that argument in court and see how it works out for you. 

The differences in the consequence for speeding violations and trademark infringement are substantial.

About - Martial Art Fraud

When someone unintentionally infringes a trademark and they are advised by the trademark owner that they are doing so, reasonable respondents acknowledge they were unaware of their mistake and willingly cease the infringing activity. They adopt a name and/or logo that they created and have rights to and move on. 

However, unreasonable respondents seek to rationalize their actions with a myraid of justifications rather than simply correcting their errant activity. Those who continue their activity unabated then become "willing infringers" with higher potential consequences.

In some cases unintentional infringers have been found to be using a trademark because they failed to conduct their own due dligence,  others just "assumed" they could use it, others decided to use a popular trademark for their advantage (fraud), other infringers have some ill-informed interpretation of "fair use", in still other cases someone told them it was ok (probably their instructor in the martial arts world) or maybe even a martial art organization may have led the infringer to believe it was ok to infringe the intellectual property of another. Just because someone tells you it is ok to speed does not make it legal and a prudent person would verify the posted speed limit for themselves.

It is very easy for a trademark infringer to resolve their errant activity. 

In most cases all they need do is stop it.

Or if they do not, they can end up like these guys as a result of their ignorance and hard-headedness.

Martial Art Instructors Hit With $115,560 Judgment - Martial Art Fraud


----------



## TSDTexan (Mar 31, 2019)

Richard Duncan said:


> Unfortunately, TSDTexan is providing inaccurate and misleading information that could encourage readers to commit trademark infringement if they fail to conduct their own due diligence.
> 
> The Moo Duk Kwan® Fist and leaves logo was created by Hwang Kee and is a Moo Duk Kwan® registered trademark in the USA (USPTO: 1,446,944 and 3,119,287) and other countries. The USA marks have achieved "incontestable status."
> 
> ...




Thanks for your input. We will just have to disagree on the matter. Your contribution to the discussion is appreciated. Pertaining to the issue, i have consulted with a number of trademark specialist lawyers and they reviewed the mdk logo.

i stand by my words.

but to each his own.

note: i am providing this information for research or entertainment purposes, this does not constitute legal advice or is provided as such.

caveat empator


----------



## TSDTexan (Mar 31, 2019)

.


----------



## TSDTexan (Mar 31, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> .




Of course, I could point out that HK violated his office when he went rogue against the vote of his board of directors during the 1960s, and fled the state in which his organization was officially chartered.


The sbd mdk created in the usa is Not the original organization, but a subsequent one.

no amount of legal trickery will ever change that.


The irony is when a subsequent organization sue its predecessor in Korea and loses... but in another country secures the legal right to trademark for the parent organization.... and calls the parent organization fraudulent and attempts and successfully sues the prior organization where it has located branches in the USA.

May the reader also be aware.
The MDK commits fraud every day that it continues its propaganda and party line about how Okinawan Martial arts forms became part of the MDK curriculum. The sheep are blissfully unaware of the lies and deceit.

Someday someone in the Organization may come clean, and bring forward the very unpalatable truths, about who HK had as first Kwanjang at the fist dojang in 1946. And the actual relationship between the chungdokwan and the mdk.

The truth is out there.


----------



## Richard Duncan (Mar 31, 2019)

These are the problematic statements:

_"The fist and laurels logo isn't trademarked."_
False. It is. In fact with two different incontestable registrations with USPTO.

_"The "gold fist" and laurels is.￼"_
False. Color is not a component of the two registrations.

_"The following images don't violate their gold fist trademark:"_
False.  This statement is presented as a fact when it is instead an opinion and an errant one at that.  As posted this statement tells the reader that the subsequent images are not infringements of a registered trademark for which they are in fact exactly that. If the remark were prefaced with "In my non-legal opinion..." then it is potentially less problematic for a reader who might take it as fact and engage in an infringing activity as a result.

In the trademark realm, "confusingly similar" is the legal characterization for what constitutes trademark infringement. For example, a simple test of "confusingly similar" could be for a person without awareness of what a trademark (any trademark design) signifies to quickly glance at altered/variant images of the trademark design (like those variants of the Moo Duk Kwan registered trademark you list) and then ask them if the various images they viewed looked similar. If they respond that the images looked similar, there is a high probability of trademark infringement.

Hwang Kee's Moo Duk Kwan organization has a well-known and highly regarded reputation that goes back to 1945 and has achieved global name recognition.

There is no predessor Moo Duk Kwan organization in Korea. There has only even been Hwang Kee's Moo Duk Kwan.

One underlying intent of trademark infringement is to use the name, identity, and reputation of a well-known and respected brand for personal advantage. 

If benefitting from the well-known reputation of another were not a trademark infringer's intent, then the person or person's infringing a registered trademark would simply create a different design of their own and employ it for their enterprises.

It is one thing to run a legal service and represent that one has a Harvard law degree, but it is a very different thing to represent to customers of that company that one is providing them with a Harvard education in law.

Unintentional trademark infringement occurs when one uses a registered mark or a "confusingly similar" variant of it without knowing that the mark is registered.  While ignorance of the law is not a defense, most trademark owners (including the Moo Duk Kwan) are willing to forgo legal action and the harsh consequences that will follow for the infringer provided the infringer simply ceases their misrepresentative activity.

Intentional or "willful" trademark infringement occurs when one knowingly uses a registered mark or a "confusingly similar" variant of it for personal advantage and/or refuses to cease use after being advised to do so.

It is fairly easy to tell who is an unintentional infringer from one who is a willful infringer.
Unintentional infringers are typically cooperative and cease their infringing activity when told to do so while willful infringers vigorously tend to argue a dozen different reasons why they should be able to continue their infringing activity rather than take corrective action.

The legal and financial consequences of intentional infringement of the Moo Duk Kwan trademark are things the following infringers learned about the hard way (including bankruptcy) because they refused to accept the limits and boundaries established by the law and to operate within them.

Martial Art Instructors Hit With $115,560 Judgment - Martial Art Fraud


----------



## Richard Duncan (Mar 31, 2019)

While none of the following dialog has anything to do with trademark infringement and the consequence thereof, I invite you to elaborate on your statements.

_"HK violated his office when he went rogue against the vote of his board of directors during the 1960s,..."_

_
"The sbd mdk created in the usa is Not the original organization, but a subsequent one."_

_
"The irony is when a subsequent organization sue its predecessor in Korea and loses..."_

_
"The MDK commits fraud every day that it continues its propaganda and party line about how Okinawan Martial arts forms became part of the MDK curriculum..."_


_"Someday someone in the Organization may come clean, and bring forward the very unpalatable truths, about who HK had as first Kwanjang at the fist dojang in 1946. And the actual relationship between the chungdokwan and the mdk."_


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 31, 2019)

@Richard Duncan, Welcome to the forum. Glad you jumped on board.
I have seen something similar to this is a patent law dispute. The similarity in the leaves on the logo is the same as looking at the laurel bush from which they originate. So the generality of the image made it "universal" and did not violate the patent. That is what I remember. Totally different application but the same inference.
I do find it curious that someone with such specific knowledge jumps into a 3 year old thread. Are you representing SBD or MDK? Would you provide us with a little background? I do not have a dog in the race. I am aware of the hard line taken by SBD and do find it harsh. It seems the current SBD MDK is more concerned with maintaining their brand over what they teach. It is becoming an enigma within the MA society.


----------



## Richard Duncan (Mar 31, 2019)

Hello dvcochran,

RE: The patent reference you mention.
Patents protect inventions and it sounds like your experience may have been related to a design patent intended to protect the ornamental design (typically not occurring in nature) of some invention. (for example, a company producing a uniquely shaped object might acquire a design patent to deter copy cats from making  a similarly shaped object). The legal criteria for whether or not an invention (object) design can be protected via patent is considerably different from whether a trademark design can be registered and employed to represent the singular source of a product or service. Patents have a very different purpose and lifespan than trademarks. For example the protection of a design patent lasts 14 years while trademark protection lasts indefinitely.

As for how this old thread came to my attention...
Search engines are constantly changing their algorithms and as a result items that were not in search results previously or which did not trigger an alert previously may appear in them today and that is how this old thread came to my attention and while the thread may be old, general education is timeless and that is the intent of weighing in.

Misinformation serves no one.  Misinformation and/or ignorance that requires legal action to educate the ignorant or misinformed is unfortunate for all involved as well as the observers witnessing the harshness of the legal education experience on the ignorant.

Unrebutted, inaccurate info published on the web only serves to exacerbate the issues, so perhaps this additional info on the topic will be of interest to some readers.

The Moo Duk Kwan is interested in being able to distinguish its licensed and legitimate sources of instruction in Hwang Kee's martial art system from unauthorized instructors and schools that have not had the training and education to meet the standards of Moo Duk Kwan schools.

That goal seems no different from that of any organization or entity that wants the public to be able to identify those legitimately associated with it by the display of the organization's trademark.

The enigma seems to be that trademark infringers prefer to argue for their lack of understanding, rather than embracing the opportunity to expand their education and adopt a design and identity of their own rather than persist in copying another's. That is the enigma.

One can hope that rational dialog about a topic may help prevent unintentional infringers even as one knows the information is unlikely to sway intentional infringers.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 31, 2019)

Richard Duncan said:


> Hello dvcochran,
> 
> RE: The patent reference you mention.
> Patents protect inventions and it sounds like your experience may have been related to a design patent intended to protect the ornamental design (typically not occurring in nature) of some invention. (for example, a company producing a uniquely shaped object might acquire a design patent to deter copy cats from making  a similarly shaped object). The legal criteria for whether or not an invention (object) design can be protected via patent is considerably different from whether a trademark design can be registered and employed to represent the singular source of a product or service. Patents have a very different purpose and lifespan than trademarks. For example the protection of a design patent lasts 14 years while trademark protection lasts indefinitely.
> ...



Thank you for your input. I is appreciated. Most of the longer tenured here have at least some knowledge of the MDK argument. I understand the rational and even though I have past ties to the MDK, which I started under many years ago, the position has no bearing on me. What I understand the least is the idea that there is exclusivity. GM Hwang, Kee, along with many, many Koreans of the same timeline and ilk came up learning, and teaching much of the same. There is a great amount of overlap in forms from virtually every country, Japan, China, and Korean not being the least of them. Nothing is really unique. Anyone can buy exact MDK or very near exact MDK patches at most any MA store online. 
GM Hwang is a great, great man and ambassador for MA. But causing divide does not help anyone. Again, I have nothing to profit or venture from any of it.  
As far as patents, my experience revolved around intellectual property, process and methodology, not a specific product. It is a very involved thing to do so I appreciate your apparent expertise in the field.


----------



## TSDTexan (Mar 31, 2019)

Richard Duncan said:


> These are the problematic statements:
> 
> _"The fist and laurels logo isn't trademarked."_
> False. It is. In fact with two different incontestable registrations with USPTO.
> ...



okey bub.
thanks for your input.


----------



## TSDTexan (Mar 31, 2019)

Richard Duncan said:


> While none of the following dialog has anything to do with trademark infringement and the consequence thereof, I invite you to elaborate on your statements.
> 
> _"HK violated his office when he went rogue against the vote of his board of directors during the 1960s,..."_
> 
> ...




I am sorry. You will have to do your own research and legwork. I did mine. I dropped enough clues... your own adventure down the rabbit hole of KMA politics and MDK historical revisionism is your own to embark upon.

or you can take the blue pill and swallow the offical official party line on these matters.

"such as HK brought these Okinawan forms back from China"  or "He learned them from a book."
Or "HK created the kibons"....... to which I must object to with the strongest of objections.... while laughing because the travesty of it all.

But I speculate that your a member of the sbdmdk offical party... and probably a legal aide to such....so you probably already did. But this is merely
speculation.


(Actually a quick fact check shows me that it is highly likely you are the Richard Philip Duncan, the executive administrator of the plaintiff mdk who was at the heart of the lawsuits...)

You are my mortal enemy (metaphorically speaking)

good day sir.

I doubt any words spoken on your behalf are in good faith... and anything I say would be combed over looking for anything actionable.

Good Day Sir.
I said
Good Day!




p.s. Richard Duncan


----------



## TSDTexan (Mar 31, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I do find it curious that someone with such specific knowledge jumps into a 3 year old thread. Are you representing SBD or MDK? Would you provide us with a little background? I do not have a dog in the race. I am aware of the hard line taken by SBD and do find it harsh. It seems the current SBD MDK is more concerned with maintaining their brand over what they teach. It is becoming an enigma within the MA society.



enigma... or eyesore... I vote the latter. IMBHO...
They are very concerned about the revenue streams far more than actually protecting the name, vision and legacy of Hwang Kee.
His dream was to reunite the RyuPa... the new orgs is to destroy the RyuPa by legal action.

His background? Oh... He is Richard Philip Duncan, the executive administrator of the Plaintiff Federation in:
*U.S. Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Fed'n, Inc. v. Tang Soo Karate Sch., Inc.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 17, 2015
3:12-CV-00669 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2015)

And it is my opinion... he is a jerk, who's boss is a bigger jerk. (no offense)


----------



## TSDTexan (Mar 31, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Thank you for your input. I is appreciated. Most of the longer tenured here have at least some knowledge of the MDK argument. I understand the rational and even though I have past ties to the MDK, which I started under many years ago, the position has no bearing on me. What I understand the least is the idea that there is exclusivity. GM Hwang, Kee, along with many, many Koreans of the same timeline and ilk came up learning, and teaching much of the same. There is a great amount of overlap in forms from virtually every country, Japan, China, and Korean not being the least of them. Nothing is really unique. Anyone can buy exact MDK or very near exact MDK patches at most any MA store online.
> GM Hwang is a great, great man and ambassador for MA. But causing divide does not help anyone. Again, I have nothing to profit or venture from any of it.
> As far as patents, my experience revolved around intellectual property, process and methodology, not a specific product. It is a very involved thing to do so I appreciate your apparent expertise in the field.




i have to wonder if Mr. Duncan has read the minutes from the Korean MDK B.O.D from '65 and '66. It seems HKs board wasn't a bunch of yes men. it seems as though a vote was taken wrt to Unification... to wit HK broke with charter rules to overrule the BODs vote, and then proceeded to fight his battle in the Korean courts (which he won) sbd mdk remained an independent organization, but this refusal to follow the vote of the BOD is the heart of the split between Tsdmdk and the TKD MDK in the mid 60s.

Oh Seh Jun was at ground zero.... and thats my lineage. It is unfortunate, that he is no longer with us.

But oh... what stubborn thing those facts are.

Too bad, Mr Duncan doesn't have access to these documents; or would be allowed to make public the aforementioned minutes to disprove my point. 
The real documents are a loss of face.

Cause they are not going to let the truth be known. Only One mdk.

only one mdk truth... truth is what official party says:

The cold reality:
HK went rogue. But they cannot discuss it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 1, 2019)

*REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS:*

MT is meant to be a "friendly martial arts community". Let's keep it thus. 

Disagreements and even arguments can and will be kept civil.

Gerry Seymour
MartialTalk Moderator


----------



## TSDTexan (Apr 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> *REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS:*
> 
> MT is meant to be a "friendly martial arts community". Let's keep it thus.
> 
> ...


i agree. Duly noted.


----------



## dvcochran (Apr 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> *REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS:*
> 
> MT is meant to be a "friendly martial arts community". Let's keep it thus.
> 
> ...


Agree, but Mr. Duncan did walk into it of his own intent. I appreciate any intelligent input which his was but it is dripping with foul purposes.


----------



## Bruce7 (Apr 3, 2019)

Years ago I believe I was taught TSD/MDK. So knowledge of the history of TSD and MDK interest me.
I am thankful for people like TSDTexan for explaining the history of Korean MAs. 
IMO the lineage and quality of the teacher name is more important than a name of the Art.


----------



## dvcochran (Apr 3, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> i agree. Duly noted.


Excellent work @TSDTexan , excellent.


----------



## Buka (Apr 4, 2019)

To me the lineage means little other than something to kibitz about, how good the founder was means little to me, nor does the proper historic name of the style. What does matter to me is the students who train today. How honorable they are, how practical, how tough, how they fight and how much they absolutely love what they're doing.

As for history, I always think about something. Been around long enough to see several generations of styles and instructors. Sometimes I hear "So and so did this when so and so did that and that's why such and such is the way it is today."  And I think to myself_, No, it's not, I was standing right there when your Master's teacher said/did that. That ain't how it happened."_

It makes me wonder how hundreds of years of various Martial Arts have changed a few stories as they ease on down the road. THEN, write it on a scroll or publish it in a book and whatta' you got? You got documented History, baby.


----------



## TSDTexan (Apr 4, 2019)

Buka said:


> To me the lineage means little other than something to kibitz about, how good the founder was means little to me, nor does the proper historic name of the style. What does matter to me is the students who train today. How honorable they are, how practical, how tough, how they fight and how much they absolutely love what they're doing.
> 
> As for history, I always think about something. Been around long enough to see several generations of styles and instructors. Sometimes I hear "So and so did this when so and so did that and that's why such and such is the way it is today."  And I think to myself_, No, it's not, I was standing right there when your Master's teacher said/did that. That ain't how it happened."_
> 
> It makes me wonder how hundreds of years of various Martial Arts have changed a few stories as they ease on down the road. THEN, write it on a scroll or publish it in a book and whatta' you got? You got documented History, baby.




Well said Buka.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 5, 2019)

Buka said:


> To me the lineage means little other than something to kibitz about, how good the founder was means little to me, nor does the proper historic name of the style. What does matter to me is the students who train today. How honorable they are, how practical, how tough, how they fight and how much they absolutely love what they're doing.
> 
> As for history, I always think about something. Been around long enough to see several generations of styles and instructors. Sometimes I hear "So and so did this when so and so did that and that's why such and such is the way it is today."  And I think to myself_, No, it's not, I was standing right there when your Master's teacher said/did that. That ain't how it happened."_
> 
> It makes me wonder how hundreds of years of various Martial Arts have changed a few stories as they ease on down the road. THEN, write it on a scroll or publish it in a book and whatta' you got? You got documented History, baby.


That pretty much summarizes my thoughts on lineage, too. It can help me to understand how things evolved. It can help the students to be able to look at related arts to get an idea of how things changed/didn't change. An instructor's lineage might interest me because they might have some stories about someone in the past I find interesting.

But none of that is major impact. Lineage is a matter of mild interest to me. When I look at a school, lineage matters about as much as rank. I'm far more interested in what's going on inside that school today.


----------



## dvcochran (Apr 6, 2019)

Buka said:


> To me the lineage means little other than something to kibitz about, how good the founder was means little to me, nor does the proper historic name of the style. What does matter to me is the students who train today. How honorable they are, how practical, how tough, how they fight and how much they absolutely love what they're doing.
> 
> As for history, I always think about something. Been around long enough to see several generations of styles and instructors. Sometimes I hear "So and so did this when so and so did that and that's why such and such is the way it is today."  And I think to myself_, No, it's not, I was standing right there when your Master's teacher said/did that. That ain't how it happened."_
> 
> It makes me wonder how hundreds of years of various Martial Arts have changed a few stories as they ease on down the road. THEN, write it on a scroll or publish it in a book and whatta' you got? You got documented History, baby.



I cannot disagree, but I think we all hope our body of work to be remembered in a good light. Where it goes off the rails is when false claims and patent lies get spun into fact. I look at it this way; everything that has been done in the past is the building blocks for what we are doing today. Could Funakoshi defeat the fighters of today? In the ring maybe not, none of can say for sure. But as I understand the history, that is not what he learned or taught people.


----------



## Metal (Apr 11, 2019)

We had a similar situation in Germany. Ko Eui Min, former Korean national coach who moved to Germany in the 70s and who runs a school in Munich or his son registered the term Kukkiwon in Germany. And they sent out cease and desist letters to other schools and clubs who were using the term Kukkiwon. Kukkiwon then undertook legal actions in order to be able to use their name in Germany.

Plus we have a similar issue with using the Jidokwan name and symbol over here. Though no legal battle yet as far as I know. There is a high ranked German instructor who started his own association and called it Jidokwan Deutschland. His view is that he‘s from a Jidokwan lineage and therefore has the right to run the national Jidokwan branch. However, there is a senior master of Korean descent who already represents Jidokwan in Germany.


----------



## TSDTexan (Apr 11, 2019)

Metal said:


> We had a similar situation in Germany. Ko Eui Min, former Korean national coach who moved to Germany in the 70s and who runs a school in Munich or his son registered the term Kukkiwon in Germany. And they sent out cease and desist letters to other schools and clubs who were using the term Kukkiwon. Kukkiwon then undertook legal actions in order to be able to use their name in Germany.
> 
> Plus we have a similar issue with using the Jidokwan name and symbol over here. Though no legal battle yet as far as I know. There is a high ranked German instructor who started his own association and called it Jidokwan Deutschland. His view is that he‘s from a Jidokwan lineage and therefore has the right to run the national Jidokwan branch. However, there is a senior master of Korean descent who already represents Jidokwan in Germany.


 I have found Korean Martial Arts can be awesome.... KMA politics however stink.

like a dead corpse.


----------

