The "Moo Duk Kwan" trademark

[TSDTexan]

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?

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]

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]

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

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]

.

 

[TSDTexan]

.

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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.

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]

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

okey bub.
thanks for your input.

 

[TSDTexan]

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."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

i agree. Duly noted.

 

[dvcochran]

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

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]

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]

i agree. Duly noted.

Excellent work @TSDTexan , excellent.

 

[Buka]

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.