Topic Twelve: The trademark of the Shaolin name

[doc]

Interesting. I remember a lawsuit that McD's had against a guy named McDonald, who had a hamburger shop. I seem to remember, a long time ago, that he got away with it. No doubt McD's must have won on appeal.

In any event, calling yourself a "Shaolin Temple" is just asking for trouble. I never understood the behavior in the first place.

[plumflower_pm]

to further that analogy: Even if your last name IS McDonald, and your hamburgers have identical ingredients, you'll pay. (regardless of whether or not you once worked at a McDs) Historical ownership takes precedence.

[doc]

It has nothing to do with products, or what is taught.

It is simple.

You have some people in Austria calling themselves the "Shaolin Temple Austria". They have an older revered monk living near them, who "associates" himself with this group in some fashion. Shi Wan Heng, whom I had met years ago, lost with a small battle with Yongxin years ago, when WanHeng told people on some tour that he was the abbot. Yongxin didn't like it, and expelled him from the temple.

This group glorifies an individual with a well discussed Shaolin history, or, lack thereof, depending upon whom you talk to.

So, this group calling themselves the Shaolin Temple of Austria, based upon their association with these two individuals, who themselves have no or limited association with present Shaolin, in a mileau where the name "Shaolin Temple" is no doubt of great concern in China, are, in my opinion, asking for a lot of trouble.

And they supposedly got it. It's going to be interesting.

It's simple. Very simple. If you open up a hamburger joint, and call it McDonald's, and your last name is not McDonald, you're going to pay.

[blooming tianshi lotus]

Firstly, the traditional aspect is relevant because by defining that from the buddhist perspective that ShiYongXin possibly plans to present it from , as opposed to what the mcdojos or non affliated ( as in never were ) schools, it opens a realm of whole new skills that only come from understanding certain concepts contained ( though not neccessarily exclusively) in shaolin buddhism. By this, I mainly refer to internal stuff and forms etc that rely on an understanding of those concepts . I'm sure you'll find beef in that statement , but I'm just going to be thankful that it's someone elses to present.

By highlighting and seperating the differences , it proves that we're dealing with 2 different products to begin with and the folks using the name to imply the same thing being offered , is just not the case. As a result of their use of the term, it confuses ppl with what the product is and takes the market from shaolin under terms of public duress.
I don't want to get to get too buddhist in my reply here , so I think I'll keep it brief.

As for the wushu / shaolin curriculum , someone already queried what was being taught in terms of gongfu at the temple as a factor in a case of allowing use of the shaolin name elsewhere. That would make it extremely relevant to the case. Alot of the true traditional stuff is not at the temple any more , however that said, their are schools and temples in the US sanctioned by ShiYongXin who are acting on the temples behalf. It's been a loong history battle for shaolin to keep itself alive and I believe that once their are certain measures in place to afford shaolin the protection to come back out of the closet at home with the skills the prc negotiated so sternly to repress as parameter for shaolin to operate at all, down to the inclusion of wushu , that shaolin gongfu will experience a revival of those more traditional forms not so apparent there at present.

What they teach Stylee is the product. I think it has a lot more to do with it than ppl might realise. And those iterations are still shaolin gongfu you think. Just the fact of those 2 terms together implies something a little more..........like affiliations for starters.

As for the Supreme precedences though ... .... ( and don't be affraid to take some lateral thought on it ) how about you tell me???



BL

[shaolinstylee]

Another thing that would be interesting... would be to call something in an English speaking country the small forest temple, or young forest temple....


what the hell did you just say?

What Supreme Court case?

What does meaninged mean?

Then Imo it comes back to defining what is deemed traditional

What does traditional as opposed to contemporary have to do with this?

a seperate wushu/shaolin curriculum may be the most viable option for a time and no doubt the gongfu comming out of temple

What does this have to do with possible proceedings on someone calling themselves the shaolin temple... very little will be placed on what they teach I think..... especially when there is so many itterations of Shaolin gong fu...


I don't even know if I pulled that apart right.

[blooming tianshi lotus]

As always, a really interesting topic. What's even more interesting is the way it's being presented and what will be more interesting again is how ShiYongXin plans to market his bid. I think I have a fair understanding of where he's comming from but I think we all think the same of our own interperatations.
I really think it's going to come down a case of seperate and define ( which explains alot of his actions and this sherrif label he's seemed to have picked up), and baby and bath water ( particularly with regard to the schools and dojos selling the last remnans of this or that ) comes to mind somewhere in the equation aswell. Bearing in mind that preserving shaolin's gongfu as part of shaolin buddhism is a deep seated goal of his own, ShiYongXin would have to have done a huge amount of homework to market it effectively and have the revival and apparent flourish the man is obviously looking for . It's been a long road back since the great revoloution and possibily even earlier. I'm sure he has a plan he trusts will work and being his commitment, I just wish him and shaolin sincere luck and generous swing of the pendulum.
Speaking of US supreme court case precedents though, I can see a few loop holes to exploit myself so it'll be interesting to see who finds what .
I don't disaggree with the "temple " tack to the application and obviously that would have more merit . He definately has his work cut out for him though and knowing there's only so much of the neccessary explaination of the differences in the products and how sharing the moniker comprimises the market of that product he's trying to define ( if first in first served is adhere to as in the precedent ) a court is going to buy and dual meaninged words and terms ( either literally or implicatively ) and plaintiff : defendant association is a nice spin to consider aswell. Then Imo it comes back to defining what is deemed traditional and those neccessary prc guanxi modifications the temple has seen and why ShiYongXin is playing with the syllabus there and why there's so much good ( however sporadic) traditional teaching in the US . Imo, it's fairly obvious in gong fus perpetuation that these traditional form and skill holders have the same objective but are committed to different marketing methods for whatever host of reason you choose ( lack of faith in each other's a humourous overture) .
For the future though, a seperate wushu/shaolin curriculum may be the most viable option for a time and no doubt the gongfu comming out of temple , given the traditional reintroduction phasing in at the moment, is on the change card aswell.
How ever it does turn out though , like everyone else I'll be holding my breath for the outcome aswell. Nice can of worms you have there Doc and thx for the thread.

Blooming Tianshi Lotus

[LeiYunFat]

Yongxin would sue McDonalds for making all the American monks fat.

Shaolin has to keep an image, you know.

[doc]

Well, the temple tag is the interesting kicker, in my opinion. I can definitely see how Yongxin can trademark the "Shaolin temple" concept, as, it is one place, in one part of the world, and he has it. And, ignorantly, many people in the US use that tag, as if they were a "shaolin temple". I think those people are really asking for it.

But the word "shaolin", in my opinion, is a more "common" word, one which I'm really surprised that he got the trademark for. In a legal case, I would really wonder how that would turn out. One can never predict what would happen in a US courtroom. I think Yongxin would have a tougher time with that one.

[shaolinstylee]

Right, thanks, I forgot about that German thing. I wonder if he'll go after Shaolin Brand here in the US, of if it'll be safe because it doesn't have the temple tag....

[doc]

It's not the first international suit. It's in the site, somewhere, probably in this thread, and also in the russbo.com CNI on the first page of the site. Yongxin had "representatives" in Germany sue the guy that runs shaolintempel.de, or something like that. The first suit failed, but Yongxin then proceded to create more reliable local "institutions", with which he could more adequately file suit in the future. The move to internationally trademark the "shaolin" name, which I'm quite surprised he got (though I'm not surprised he got the "Shaolin Temple" trademark, a completely different thing as I see it), was the next step, and a prepatory one for his taking over the Shaolin name worldwide.

I've mentioned this in the past, long before this all became "obvious". The plans years ago, when destructing the village and getting rid of the local schools, had made it clear to me that the future move was to capitalize on the Shaolin name directly. Well, it's happening. The temple is preparing its little disneyland over there, with plans to offer training for foreigners. Getting rid of any sort of international competition would be the logical next step.

Wolf's big mistake, in my opinion, is that he hasn't been reading this thread, lol. It's perfectly obvious that the whole Shaolin issue is a sensitive one for Yongxin, one which he has spent a lot of resources pursuing. And, with the current financial situation that he's created in Shaolin, he has the resources to do this. Of course, anyone referring to their school or whatever they have, as a "shaolin temple", is really asking for trouble. Especially when that school adores and glorifies an individual with a well known historically debatable shaolin history (as per the multitude of forum posts on various Shaolin related sites), and an unquestionably poor relationship with Yongxin (as evidenced by Yongxin's behavior towards him during one of his trips to Shaolin).

Bad move. Yongxin has prepared his pawns well this time, having learned from the failure of the German lawsuit (which is currently again in process as I've last heard). He's got all his pieces lined up, and he's ready this time.

[LeiYunFat]

Stylee, your post count is 1337!

l337, stylee is teh pwnzor.

[shaolinstylee]

Well, is this the first international suite? If it is, it could send an interesting president.

[LeiYunFat]

In all the situations that are similar to this one, I would bet on Yongxin. I might not even fight it, depending on the circumstances.

[doc]

Reliable rumor from various people informs me that the people in Austria who run the shaolinwolf site, devotees of Yanming, are in the process of being sued by Yongxin and the Shaolin Temple, for supposed trademark infringement.

Actually, I'm not surprised. They publicly refer to their school as "Shaolin Temple Austria", which, considering what is obviously going on with respect to this trademark issue, is almost as ignorant as playing golf on US Interstate I 5. Their "lineage" is no doubt not the best in the abbot's eyes....

However, we wish them well in their endeavor. It will be interesting to see how the Austrian courts handle this issue.

Personally, my bets would not be with wolf on this one.

[doc]

Uwe sent me an interesting observation about all of this. I can't imagine this being an oversight on the abbot's legal team's part.

The fact is, the PRC, Shaolin Temple, nor does Abbot Shi Yongxin, have any legal claim to exclusive use of"
Shaolin", or even "Shaolin Temple" for martial arts training, martial arts exhibitions or martial arts performances in the USA. Their USA trademarks #2882759, # 2882776 and their pending marks #76168740,
#76171758 do not include martial arts training, martial arts exhibitions or martial arts performances.