The "Moo Duk Kwan" trademark

TrueJim

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
373
Location
Virginia
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

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
3,580
Reaction score
923
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.
 
OP
TrueJim

TrueJim

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
373
Location
Virginia
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

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
1,861
Reaction score
216
Location
USA
This issue has came up on the threads before, I'm trying to track down the thread(s).

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

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
1,861
Reaction score
216
Location
USA
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. :banghead:
 

dancingalone

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
5,322
Reaction score
281
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

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
1,861
Reaction score
216
Location
USA
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

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
5,322
Reaction score
281
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.
 
OP
TrueJim

TrueJim

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
373
Location
Virginia
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

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
340
Location
Stevenage, Herts, UK
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

Master of Arts
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
627
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.
 
OP
TrueJim

TrueJim

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
373
Location
Virginia
...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

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
5,322
Reaction score
281
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?
 
OP
TrueJim

TrueJim

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
373
Location
Virginia
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

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
5,322
Reaction score
281
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

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
23,355
Reaction score
9,095
Location
Pueblo West, CO
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

White Belt
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
17
Reaction score
4
Location
Colorado
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.
 
OP
TrueJim

TrueJim

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
373
Location
Virginia
...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

White Belt
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
17
Reaction score
4
Location
Colorado
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.
 
Last edited:

msmitht

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
838
Reaction score
69
Location
san diego
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.
 

Latest Discussions

Top