Topic Twelve: The trademark of the Shaolin name

[doc]

Some interesting news articles about the trademark of the Shaolin name...

Two articles from China's leading news daily:

Shaolin brand

Shaolin Temple, known for its legendary martial Buddhist monks, recently handed over 20,900 yuan (US$2,518) in tax for its first income obtained from a Taiwan-based user of the "Shaolin" trade mark.

The popularity of the temple soared following production of the film "Shaolin Temple," which attracted millions of viewers around the world two decades ago.

To protect its intellectual rights, Shaolin Temple set up a company, Henan Shaolin Business Development Co Ltd, and registered the "Shaolin" trademark in almost 100 nations and regions.


Monks battle use of "Shaolin" as trademark
(September 25,2002 )(xinhua)


Shaolin Temple monks, most famous for boxing, are finding themselves caught up in a new kind of fight, one to protect their temple's name.


The outside world is engaging the monks, normally considered to be far removed from worldly activities, in a "war" to prevent the name of the temple in central China's Henan Province from being abused in commercial activities.


Shaolin Temple, built at Songshan Mountain, central China's Henan Province, in 496 during the Northern and Southern dynasties (420-581), is considered the birthplace of the famous Shaolin Boxing, a unique combination of Buddhist and Chinese martial arts.


The militia monks of Shaolin gained fame during the early Tang Dynasty (618-907) by helping Li Shimin, the second emperor of the Tang Dynasty, to suppress a local feudal ruler who wanted to set up a separate government by force.


Shaolin Boxing has been gaining influence worldwide as actors of Chinese origin, such as Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan, use its stunts in a wide range of overseas films.


The current battle involves the registration of "Shaolin" or " Shaolin Temple" as tradmarks all over the world. A random survey conducted by the China Trademark and Patent Affairs Agency in 11 countries and regions on five continents shows that, except for Hong Kong, these areas have been caught up in the craze, registering 117 items with the name.


Take China itself + more than 100 businesses, in sectors including automobiles, furniture, foods, alcoholic beverages and medicine, are churning out commodities bearing the trademark of " Shaolin."


A growing abuse of Shaolin as a trademark in internationalcommercial activities in past years have dragged the monks into awar of self defense.


Henan Shaolin Temple Industrial Development Ltd. Co. has beenset up to take charge of protecting and administrating theintangible assets of Shaolin Temple in a systematic way in a bidto safeguard the legitimate rights of the temple and ban abusiveuse of the temple's name in commercial activities, said ShiYongxin, abbot of Shaolin Temple.


In the meantime, the temple has made efforts to register " Shaolin" and "Shaolin Temple" as trademarks with the GeneralAdministration for Industry and Commerce of China.


By August this year, Shaolin Temple had received certificatesof registration for over 43 items, according to the abbot.


Registration of Shaolin Temple as trademarks overseas has alsobeen stepped up. "It is in the benefit of Shaolin Temple forprotecting trademarks internationally," said Shi Yongxin.


After negotiations, Rainer Deyhle, a German businessman,decided to give 11 trademarks he registered in the European Union(EU) two years ago to Shaolin Temple without charge, and thelatter will cooperate with the German businessman in setting up aShaolin cultural center in Germany, where two monks from thetemple will give lectures all year round.


After more than a year's effort, Shaolin Temple has alsoprocured the rights of prior applications for five registered " Shaolin" trademarks in Australia.


"It is our unshirkable historical responsibilities to protectand rejuvenate the culture of Shaolin," added Shi Yongxin.

[doc]

Yes, actually quite extensive discussion about this topic has already taken place in the old discussion forum. Head on over to the archive (use the button on top) and search for the relevant posts. I can't remember where exactly in the old forum this was; there actually might have been multiple threads on this "How many Shaolin temples were there" discussion.

[dave]

wooden dummy: ur very close to opening a can of worms thats been discussed over and over - have fun

dave

[doc]

Ah, but it's not. It's a new, rebuilt temple on the same site where there used to be the original shaolin temple. As it is, from one way of looking at it, the current henan temple is about the fourth shaolin temple, including the southern ones. And anyway, I said "APART from geographical location", lol.

The Henan temple is the one and only. Some of the buildings go back a few hundred years, the one in the back for example, the Thousand Buddha Pavilion. The other so called "Shaolin temples" in the south, IF they existed, were not the original. I suggest you read my FAQ in the site about "How many Shaolin temples there are". You're wrong to assume that the southern temples existed, or played a role as "being" Shaolin. The Henan temple was it.

I agree with your interpretation of the Shaollin name. Yes, it could get messy. No, lots of these southern based Shaolin schools do not teach what is traditionally taught at the Henan temple. Do they teach somethig that had been taught at Shaolin two hundred years ago? Quite possibly. So, yes, it all gets quite messy. And with Chinese history reported the way it is, I don't think that one would ever know.

[dave]

i dont really think you could trademark the name or else its gonna get real silly.

dave

[wooden dummy]

The Shaolin temple in Henan province where we train is the original Shaolin temple

Ah, but it's not. It's a new, rebuilt temple on the same site where there used to be the original shaolin temple. As it is, from one way of looking at it, the current henan temple is about the fourth shaolin temple, including the southern ones. And anyway, I said "APART from geographical location", lol.

To be honest, I don't really care much anyway, but for the sake of argument, the idea is that while surely traditional shaolin IS taught at the temple, it's probably no MORE traditional than a variation taught at any other legitimate shaolin school. How can we tell what's a legitimate school or not? Well, we can't, really, since then we're back to the whole thing of cryptic answers, knowing glances and crafty smiles. The sheer quantity of misinformation means we just gotta go mostly by experience and gut feeling. My only real problem with all this is how it will affect these other schools, with a lineage just as legitimate as the temple, of which there surely are a few. Staying with the example of wahnam (probably a bad idea since their integrity seems to be seriously under question around here most of the time, but what the hell), will a school like that be able to survive by calling itself "wahnam-style shaolin gungfu" (which is really what it is; a mixture of lai chin wah and ho fut nam's respective variations), or will that be an illegal infringement of copyright? (remember this is just an example: think of it as applying to all such schools) Would they have to invent a new name, like "Wong Gar gung fu" or something? In which case, the rightful links with traditional shaolin would be wrongfully severed. Now this may not be much of a problem for a well-established school like wahnam, but what of a smaller school run by some old former monk/disciple (and please don't anybody be pedantic about that, yes I KNOW it's not probable) who can only keep his school going because he can legally advertise it under the well-known moniker of shaolin gung fu? Would it become some kind of legally prosecutable offence to advertise as such?

[doc]

The Shaolin temple in Henan province where we train is the original Shaolin temple. That's why they have the "right" to that name, "Shaolin temple". That be the place. As for traditional forms, yes, there are well recognized traditional forms that go back a thousand years: Shao Hong Chuan, Da Hong Chuan, Tong Bei Chuan, Da Lohan Chuan, Xiao Lohan Chuan, and a few more. There's not much from over a thousand years ago, not sure if there were forms as such at that time. Things started to get more organized around the time the Hong family started Shao Hong Chuan, and taught it to the monks of the Shaolin temple.

So, there are reasons for Yongxin to want the Shaolin name. It belongs to him. LOL.

doc

[wooden dummy]

But that's exactly what I'm talking about, doc: who's to say what's traditional and what's not any more, when there are so many differences in "traditional" style according who you talk to, is there really any such thing as "the REAL, unmodified shaolin gung fu", surviving from 1500 years ago? My guess is, probably not.

Does WKK teach real "traditional" shaolin? I dunno. He teaches whatever it was his two sifus taught him, and he'll be the first to tell you that, despite both being southern shaolin, they were two quite different styles in their own right. Is the traditional shaolin at the temple perfect, 100% unmodified shaolin gung fu? Again, almost certainly not. The point is, given this fact, do they have any more right to the "shaolin" name than anyone else, other than their geographical location? The temple isn't even the exact original temple. Does that make a difference? Again, probably not. And who's going to be able to do the defnitive research when there's not such thing as a straight answer, or absolutely irrefutable information?

[doc]

Two points here. What is your definition of a "totally traditional" Shaolin school? Is it a school that claims to be Shaolin, taught by some old Chinese guy who emigrated from Hong Kong many years ago, who teaches some white tiger stuff? Yes, Wong Fei Hung's stuff is different from Wong Long's style, but both claim to teach "traditional Shaolin". Or do they???

This is the problem. Well, part of it. Because how do you know that these people are teaching the real traditional stuff that has stayed at the temple for centuries? How do you know that, much like some famed martial arts schools here in the US, that some guy, many years ago, met some monk who claimed to have been in Shaolin, learned one praying mantis form, and then went to Hong Kong, and subsequently to America, to teach "traditional Shaolin", after creating a whole bunch of forms and maneuvers based to some degree on the one form that he learned? (How many times have I heard about US "grandmasters", breaking off from their original "traditional" school with a second degree black belt, and open their own "traditional" system, after elevating themselves to ninth degree? Hey, it has happened! How do you know that, for example, Wong Kiew Kit, who claims to teach traditional Shaolin, and who claims that the present day monks only know wushu, really does teach the old traditional Shaolin? (The one video on the site from his school is revealing...)

This is the problem. Shi Yongxin understands this; he's one hell of a smart puppy. There are a lot of people out there who claim to teach traditional Shaolin, because traditional Shaolin is HOT now. But, do they teach the time honored forms that have been past down from generation to generation, or do they teach a variant of something that they've learned in the past, something that was told to them to have been traditional Shaolin, something which was related??

I trained for ten years in kempo, in a major US martial arts school, getting to the point of preparing for my second degree black belt test (a car accident ended that possibility). I had been told over those years, that the kempo I was learning was originally influenced by Shaolin; in fact, they called it "Shaolin kempo". I actually enjoyed it, it was good stuff. Good Japanese stuff. There are distinct differences between Japanese influenced styles, and Chinese influenced styles, which I only figured out AFTER training in Shaolin one on one, with the head coach of the Shaolin wushu guan (Shi De Cheng). After my training in Shaolin, I could distinctly see the differences between kempo and true Shaolin (there are very limited similarities). Was my ten years in kempo real Shaolin? No, not at all. Was the kempo training that I recieved historically influenced by Shaolin? Yes, I could see where some stuff had been influenced by the Chinese martial art. Is kempo the same as Shaoln gong fu, as it has been traditionally taught at the temple? No, not at all.

This is the problem. It's all a matter of perception. Different people are going to percieve things as they've been led to believe. People can train in a heavily Japanese influenced martial art, and be told that it is Shaolin, and believe it. Until they go to Shaolin, until they spend a significant amount of time training in traditional styles, until they open their eyes and stop believing the bullshit that they are being fed, they will never know, nor will they ever believe.

But it's a bigger problem than that. Because, the general public's perception has been swayed by all these different schools, all claiming to be teaching real traditional Shaolin, all teaching different stuff, all, granted, historically influenced to some degree by Shaolin, all, you must understand, altered by those who have imported or taught the style over the years. That's not to say that the traditional forms have not been altered; in fact, I've seen some traditional forms taught slightly differently by different monks,all depending upon what they themselves know, or want to remember. But generally, there are traditional forms in Shaolin that go back a thousand years, and these are still taught at the various Shaolin schools, exactly passed down from master or coach to disciple. I've seen incredible rigidity in these schools when it comes to mastering the various forms.

Future generations may not know the difference, with "Sammy the Ho's" School of Shaolin, purporting to teach "real Shaolin gong fu", especially if Sammy the Ho is a better businessman than, let's say, a real monk, Shi YanZi, who does teach real Shaolin gong fu. The school with the greater market penetration is going to be able to write martial arts history the way that they want to (and we see that here in the US with our "first Shaolin disciples" claiming to be this and that), and, if they do the marketing properly, people will believe it. You've got a monk in Houston by the name of Shi Xing Hao, who teaches real traditional Shaolin gong fu, and does it well mind you, and very few people in the US know he's there. He can claim to teach traditional gong fu, because he lived in the damn temple for a good part of his life, but people in the US will gravitate to the larger Japanese oriented martial arts schools, because they have bigger, more colorful ads in the phone book. Plus, they get far more magazine coverage that purports them to be what they want them to be, but not necessarily what they are. It's a horrible fact of life, bullshit gets you further in life than truth and honesty. Why? Because, in general, people are stupid. They're easily led. They'll believe you and your nonsense, if that's what they want to believe. The truth get's thrown out the window.

The ability to question, and to research, and to discover on your own, is a sign of intelligence. But, that all takes work. It's easier to believe other people's spoon fed nonsense, especially if it's palatable and wonderful, and it's something that you can easily become a part of. I'm not sure, but I think Shi Yongxin realizes this. I understand his wanted to "take back" the Shaolin name, to protect it, and to nourish it. I don't understand some of the allegiances he has made in the past, and, quite honestly, I think that once he figures out that he's made a bit of a fool of himself, he'll correct his actions. The true Yongxin, the one who is genuinely interested in protecting the tradition of the temple, will eventually override the commercial Yongxin. I truly believe that. I understand what he's trying to do, and I agree with it.

As Shaolin gets more desirable, more and more charlatans will pretend to teach it. And that's unfortunate. It's unfortunate for two reasons. One, it will water down the concept of what is truly genuine traditional Shaolin, and two, it will destroy other, very respectable martial arts traditions, such as kempo, or white tiger, or what have you, as their instructors start claiming that what they're teaching is "Shaolin".

Second point, wushu and traditional are taught at the temple. And yes, there was a fear a bit ago, which I discussed way back when, of the temple gravitating more towards wushu and less towards traditional. We all talked about it last year, when I brought this observation up. But, apparently, the gods of the internet have listened, and now there's some movement in the temple to start teaching traditional again. Yongxin is making moves to bring traditional back into the limelight, even though, wushu is the preferred sport in China. The schools do continue to teach traditional forms along with wushu, and most students are fully aware of the differences. One type will not get blurred into the other. One type will not over rule the other. When you've got monks like Shi De Cheng, who try to keep the traditional stuff alive, along with other's, it's not going to die. And anyone who is halfway savvy about Shaolin, can easily spot the differences.

[wooden dummy]

Yeah, but that's my point (sorry for not making it clearer).

If there's "wushu" and traditional shaolin styles at the temple, will he differences become lost- that is to say, by looking at a totally traditional, un-"wushu"-ised school, then at the various modernised aspects of shaolin temple training, you can see which parts are traditional at the temple and which aren't. The problem is that these non-temple traditional schools technically, IMHO, have as much right to call themselves "shaolin" as the temple does, so if they're not allowed to call themselves as such, future generations may not have the benefit of knowing the difference.

The problem is that "traditional shaolin" gong fu in itself changes depending on which specific person is teaching it to you. It seems to me that variations on shaolin are as different as the people passing on the knowledge- wong fei hung's style is different form wong long's style is different from fong sai yuk's style is different from ng mui's style is different from chee seen's style is different to jiang nan's style etc etc etc and so on, so to introduce an element of "this IS OFFICIALLY shaolin and this is NOT shaolin" starts to go against the whole sort of unwritten tradition that we have here.

[Lipster]

Wood,

Who's to say what's traditional and what's not any more? It's generally accepted that what's taught at the temple these days isn't 100% "traditional", as such...

I've still don't understand why this issue is so misunderstood. Yes, there's plenty, if not mostly, wushu taught in the temple. But there is still a fair bit of traditional stuff taught there (which, it seems, is what people want more of as Doc just mentioned). Just because there is a mix of the two, it doesn't mean that one cannot identify or that this negates the traditional stuff. Traditional is still traditional. Wushu is wushu. Both are there. Capiche?

Peace

[doc]

Well, this is the problem. Where do you draw the line?

Do you consider things that have some direct correlation with Shaolin at some time in the past, to be "Shaolin"? In that case, the problem is, you can almost associate just about any style, in most places of the world, as a "Shaolin" style, mainly because Shaolin's influence over the centuries has been fairly widespread. The problem is, a great deal of your Japanese martial arts, to use an example, have had varying degrees of influence from Shaolin, but if you compare what is currently taught in some of these Japanese styles, with what has been traditionally taught at Shaolin, there's little similarity. And yes, traditional stuff is still being taught at Shaolin, and from what I hear, Shi Yongxin has apparently heeded the call of the internet, and is trying to reintroduce more traditional stuff in the training for the the new temple monks (he has his masters that he has to please also, such as the Chinese government, which is more interested in propagating the more competitive wushu).

But my feeling on all of this is, and this is my opinion, from watching Yongxin's movements over the years, and the progress and alteration that has occurred at the temple itself, is that Yongxin is going to want Shaolin's name associated only with schools that he "approves" of, and those schools are going to be schools taught by monks who have left the temple, in the "good graces" of the temple. It's going to get interesting. I've made the point that the term "Shaolin" can't be trademarked, as it's too common a name. It's in a post somewhere either here or in the Archive, can't remember where it went. The term "Shaolin Temple" can be trademarked, and, in my opinion, there's going to be lots of action with respect to this issue, coming from Yongxin and his associates or attorneys, in the future.

Keep an eye on this issue. It's an important one, and it's not over yet.

doc

[wooden dummy]

How many of these schools teach Shaolin gong fu, as it is presently taught at the temple, and as it has traditionally been taught at the temple???

Who's to say what's traditional and what's not any more? It's generally accepted that what's taught at the temple these days isn't 100% "traditional", as such... but then, what of the schools teaching styles descended from the southern shaolin temples? Do they have any less right to the shaolin name than the current temple (even if they're not fully intact traditional styles), seeing as how the current northern shaolin wushu is probably just as subjected to distortions and modifications, especially since modernised sports wushu, as any hypothetical southern styles? What about the Wudang temple's shaolin heritage? How many sentences in a row can a man possibly finish with a question mark?

[dave]

doc: thats very interesting though... coz your gong fu brother Gene also does "Bak Siu Lum", which is a northern shaolin system transposed to the south of china. How does it fit in to all this as its documented to come from the temple a few generations ago.

as far as i can see the shaolin in the temple doesnt have any of those bak siu lum forms in its curriculum? Even though they "recognise" it as derived form shaolin?

dave

[doc]

How many of these schools teach Shaolin gong fu, as it is presently taught at the temple, and as it has traditionally been taught at the temple???

Now there's something for you to think about....

doc