Talk:Moo Duk Kwan/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Moo Duk Kwan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Trademark Discussion

(I copied the trademark discussion and made a separate section. SunSw0rd 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

Moo Duk Kwan is not trade marked, nor can it be. --Bigzilla 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Moo Duk Kwan is a registered trademark regardless of what the ill informed may believe. http://soobahkdo.editme.com/TrademarksAndLogosPublic

True. Moo Duk Kwan is trademarked in the USA. Here is the complete list of live (non-expired) trademarks:

UNITED STATES SOO BAHK DO MOO DUK KWAN FEDERATION
A symbol which is the yin-yang circle with a house in it and some characters. Note this is NOT the fist symbol!
MOO DUK KWAN

AMERICAN MOO DUK KWAN TANG SOO DO FEDERATION

This filing above is DEAD and was abandoned after notice to filers by USSBDMDK. SooBahkDo (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

UNITED STATES TANG SOO DO MOO DUK KWAN FEDERATION

*The fist logo itself is in fact a registered, live trademark as well.

*See Federal Registration numbers 1,446,944 and 3,119,287

*Any version of the registered logo including the Hanja (Chinese) for "Tae" and "Kwon" on the left and right sides of the scroll respectively, is also in violation of the registered trademark, as a "misrepresentation" of an existing registered logo.

Me43679 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that trademarks are exact. Therefore, any dojang with "Tae Kwon Do Moo Duk Kwan" or "Moo Duk Kwan Tae Kwon Do" is not in trademark violation. Trademark violation would be if they if they used any of the above precise character strings, or the trademarked symbol (which is not the fist). Since Moo Duk Kwan Tae Kwon Do has been practiced in the USA since 1964, it is highly doubtful that any attempt to prosecute them for trademark violation would work.

*Actually, the above statements are in violation because they contain the exact trademarked phrase Moo Duk Kwan within their titles. Me43679 17:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Coca-Cola faced this issue. It is perfectly legal for someone to use the word "Cola" e.g. Pepsi-Cola. There are two aspects -- usage and registration.

First, trademark status is gained by usage. Therefore, if organization A uses a symbol or phrase, and organization B uses that symbol or phrase -- both are protected by usage.

If then organization B registers that symbol or phrase -- it does not in fact invalidate organization A's usage. It does help prevent any Johnny-come-lately from grabbing that symbol or phrase because they can't claim "they didn't know". But it doesn't impact organization A's usage of that symbol or phrase -- because they were already using it, and had used it for a long time, when organization B registered the symbol or phrase.

The bottom line is that registration does not prevent someone from using the symbol or phrase if , by usage, they were already using that symbol or phrase at the time of registration.

What has happened here is that Soo Bahk Do & Tang Soo Do have registered a phrase and a symbol. And thus they have legal recourse against some guy from opening up a storefront and using that phrase and/or symbol. But they don't have legal recourse against TKD schools who have been using that phrase and symbol for decades -- because those schools have established trademark status by usage -- and usage has priority over registration.

This is fact -- and, I suggest, why TSD has not picked a fight with the TKD schools who use Moo Duk Kwan and the fist. Because, in a court of American federal law -- and the trademarks are registered in the USA -- they would lose. Because usage has priority over registration. QED. SunSw0rd 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As evidence for this prior usage in the United States alone, see this book title published in 1975: [http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Kwan-Kwon-Korean-Self-Defense/dp/0897500156 Beginning Moo Duk Kwan Tae Kwon Do Korean Art of Self-Defense Volume 1] by Richard Chun. SunSw0rd 18:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation" does own the Moo Duk Kwan trademark. This is true if by trademark they mean one of the above character strings or the symbol (not a fist) -- but it is still legit for Tae Kwon Do dojangs to use the phrase as long as it is part of the Tae Kwon Do phrase. SunSw0rd 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MOO DUK KWAN and the FIST LOGO are registered trademarks representing to the public ONE thing, the ONLY SOURCE of legitimate training and certifications in the MOO DUK KWAN martial art system. Counterfeiters and unauthorized users of trademarks are subject to legal action. The literal translations are subserviant to the trademark status of this phrase and representing this phrase as anything other than the trademark that it is, could contribute to public confusion and could even be considered tortuous interference of the trademark owner's rights.

The U.S. Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation http://soobahkdo.com has prevailed in 100% of all cases where it sought relief from individuals and organizations engaged in trademark infringement for use of the trademarked phrase MOO DUK KWAN the trademarked FIST LOGO and the service mark SOO BAHK DO. Furthermore, unauthorized "usage" of a trademark by an infringer is still a violation of federal trademark law regardless of the duration of infringement. Any "usage" of phrases or emblems that are confusingly similar to a registered trademark will be held by the courts as a violation of the trademark owner's rights. The court awarded damages available to a trademark holder may increase substantialy with the duration of an infringer's activity. Trademark infringement is a bit like speeding, just because you have gotten away with speeding for a long time does not make it legal and when you are caught speeding you will pay the price. http://soobahkdo.editme.com/TrademarksAndLogosPublic

````Phil Duncan, Executive Administrator USSBDMDK Federation 2007-11-30—Preceding unsigned comment added by SooBahkDo (talk • contribs)

So what effect does this have on the article? Bradford44 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Err when you've finished ranting could you provide some evidence that's not from your own web site? To

Prove ownership
That it dose "represent[ing] to the public ONE thing, the ONLY SOURCE of legitimate training and certifications in the MOO DUK KWAN"--Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
and you do have '"the ONLY SOURCE of legitimate training and certifications in the MOO DUK KWAN"

Then we can point out agian that this is an encyclopaedia reporting facts not an advert site. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Moo Duk Kwan and the fist logo are federally registered trademarks in the U.S. and readers should be informed of that fact in the context of discussions about Moo Duk Kwan or the fist logo. The intentional exclusion of these facts from wikipedia entries about Moo Duk Kwan or the fist logo when due notice has been posted could be considered tortuous interference with the trademark owner's rights and failure to fully disclose relevant facts about a topic is unencyclopedic and a violation of wikipedia's own tenants and policies. Surely with all the notices posted throughout wikipedia about sensitivity to copyrights, it should not be necessary to engage the wikipedia dispute department in order to have the simple fact of trademark ownership become a valid part of an article. Absent that fact the acticle is misinformative and misleading to the public. SooBahkDo 11:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Which policy? Also, if your talking policies, please read Wikipedia:No legal threats --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See above my comments on usage versus registration. Under US Trademark law, prior usage trumps registration. That is, if two parties both are using a symbol and/or phrase, and one party then registers that symbol and/or phrase, it does not preclude the other party from continuing to use that symbol and/or phrase, due to their prior usage. In other countries this rule does not hold (registration may trump prior usage) but in the USA usage trumps registration. Technically it is known as "common law usage" -- and the way it works is (and I quote) "Even if a mark obtains U.S. Federal registration status, ( the U.S.P.T.O. does not search common law references) such a registration cannot be enforced against a prior user in their market territory" and "trademarks arise out of use and may not be federally registered" and " It is important to take note of Common Law usage of any given mark. While the United States Patent & Trademark Office does not conduct a Common Law search in evaluating the registrability of a proposed mark, an applicant would be well-advised to have Common Law records searched, if their budget permits. For you to know, there are thousands of businesses and individuals in the United States right now who have common law rights in a mark that they have begun to use in connection with the goods and services that they are selling, even though they have never sought formal registration. While a federal registration accords an owner nationwide rights in its federally registered mark regardless of the territory in which the registrant actually uses the mark, such rights may not be fully enforceable against a senior non-registered, Common Law user of the same or similar mark in the territory that the senior non-registered user was using the mark prior to the time the registrant received its registration." SunSw0rd 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Moo Duk Kwan is a federally registered trademark (USPTO 3,023,145) as is the fist logo (USPTO 1,446,944 and 3,119,287) of the U.S. Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation Inc. Unauthorized use is prohibited. It's that simple. Since Hwang Kee founded the Moo Duk Kwan there is no case for prior usage. Anyone espousing "justifications" for counterfeiting and misrepresentation to the public about the source of the products or services being sold to the public by using the Moo Duk Kwan name and logo without authorization or a license to do so is tortuously interfering with the trademark owner's rights. It's not rocket science. If it doesn't belong to you, then don't use it without permission. SooBahkDo 05:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

SooBahkDo -- I don't know why you keep asserting this. Under United States trademark law you are wrong. I don't know why you keep simplistically asserting that registration is everything. It is not. Prior usage trumps registration. Reason's go back to the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. That is fact. SunSw0rd 18:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a mess Raised it here --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Harland1 posted about this problem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts#Soo Bahk Do. However, I don't think we should be having this debate in more than one place, so I'm going to quote his post and my response here (because I want discussion on the points I raised), and I'm going to post a link to this discussion, there. Here goes:

Cut and pasted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts#Soo Bahk Do, do not edit.
This edit here from SooBahkDo was placed on Soo Bahk Do and Tang Soo Do. I removed it and this notice was placed on my talk page. I then contacted SooBahkDo here and received a reply what should be done? Harland1 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) There are a couple of important issues with regard to that edit. It is important to understand that any legal threats contained within that post are essentially meaningless insofar as wikipedia or its editors are concerned. A trademark can only be infringed when it is used in connection with the sale of goods or services. Obviously no commerce is going on here, so there is nothing wrong with writing the names of or otherwise discussing Soo Bahk Do, Tang Soo Do, or Moo Duk Kwan to our hearts' content. Despite the abrasive manner in which the editor in question has proceeded thus far, at least one point raised has merit. If an article is about an organization with a registered trademark, should this be noted in the article (sans legal threats, of course)? MOS:TM provides no guidance on this point, except to say that it is inappropriate to tag terms with ™ or ® (the purpose of these symbols is for the trademark owner to warn potential infringers - they are irrelevant to non-owners). My conclusion is that it would be appropriate to note, in a single sentence, that "X" combination of words is a registered trademark of "Y" person or company, IF a reliable secondary source is provided; preferably an actual registration number or code with the appropriate U.S. Government office, not just a claim on the organization's website. Bradford44 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) For what it's worth, it is listed on the US Patent and Trademark Office: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=ukgjr.1.1 --Cubbi 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) link is (annoyingly) auto-logon sensitive so won't work but I found the same things, how dose this work with logos? p.s. posted this before I saw this discussion, as I was running out of ideas & legal threats are generally bad. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, in summary, please ignore the legal threats, they are inapplicable to the type of "usage" occurring on Wikipedia (likewise for the logo, Nate). Do please consider whether the mere fact of trademark ownership by an organization is worthy of mention in the article about that organization. Bradford44 15:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The fist symbol was registered back in 1987 by U.S. Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation. The phrase "Moo Duk Kwan" has been registered by that organization since Dec 6th 2005. Any organization using it prior to these dates may continue to do so under the previously noted "common law". The use of these terms in the wikipedia article either directly related to the USSBDMDKF (what an acronym!) or other organizations that are either outside of US jurisdiction or are protected under "common law" - hence I would say that it is fair to use "Moo Duk Kwan" within the page - although it is worth noting that it is a registered trademark. The logo could probably be removed without much loss to the article (and even if it remains, it is acknowledged as a copyrighted image with those protections - and does not need the legal threats on every page that's approximately related to it). -- Medains 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I may have been tactless with my removals of mention of the trademark, partly I only saw anything not based on the 1st party site today and sometimes I can't be bothered to copy-edit pov\coi rants to encyclopaedic prose & there's that tempting 'undo' button... --Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The key aspect of law here can be found right in wikipedia itself, specifically the page titled Unregistered trademark -- quoting: "In the United States, registration, both federal or state, is not required to obtain rights in a trademark. An unregistered mark may still receive common law trademark rights. Those rights, for example, may extend to its area of influence--usually delineated by geography. As such, multiple parties may simultaneously use a mark throughout the country or even state." SunSw0rd 19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Source Wikipedia) "What a legal threat isn't

A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat". If you are the owner of copyrighted material which has been inappropriately added to Wikipedia, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome and appropriate. You may contact the information team, contact the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent, or use the procedures at Wikipedia:Copyright problems."

Advising the public of trademark ownership is not a legal threat it is a statement of ownership. Statements posted here alleging that unauthorized use of a registered trademark is acceptable are misleading and could encourage trademark infringement. Those statements are more advertorial in nature by suggesting and promoting that unauthorized users can use the trademarks of others, than are statements of ownership that leave it to the reader to decide whether or not they should engage in unauthorized use of another's trademarks.

The Moo Duk Kwan name was adopted by Hwang Kee in 1945 and has been in continuous use by his legitimately authorized organizations worldwide since then. Just because others may counterfeit purses, watches, etc. it does not make the products they produce legitimate, nor does stating that the practice of counterfeiting is acceptable make it legal. SooBahkDo (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and for the umpteenth time, this has almost no relevance whatsoever to any activity taking place on Wikipedia. Trademark ownership and registration protects the owner from competing COMMERCIAL USE. Since NO COMMERCE IS TAKING PLACE ON WIKIPEDIA, NO TRADEMARKS ARE BEING INFRINGED when these trademarked phrases are used. In my opinion, this discussion and related article edits are becoming disruptive. Please consider contributing constructively to these articles, instead of posting unencyclopedic legal notices. The bare fact that a particular organization owns a particular trademark is appropriate material for an article; accompanying such a fact with infringement warnings, etc..., is not. Bradford44 (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Bradford44 "...The bare fact that a particular organization owns a particular trademark is appropriate material for an article;..."

So wouldn't the logical title of such an article be the Trademark name? And if a trademark owner creates an article about their trademark, its origin, history, current use, etc. would it logically be featured on a page by the same name as the trademark? MOS:TM even recommends proper trademark use in sentences and linking to the trademark article page. So what page would a Moo Duk Kwan reference link to if not the page named Moo Duk Kwan?

Pursuant to the remark about ownership of a trademark being appropriate for an article, placement of the single line of trademark notification near the top of the page titled Moo Duk Kwan would more adequately inform readers of the nature of the phrase and logo as they read the page contents.

Thank you to whoever cleaned up and included the trademark notifications and citations. SooBahkDo (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"What a legal threat isn't: A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".

At what point is

Any "usage" of phrases or emblems that are confusingly similar to a registered trademark will be held by the courts as a violation of the trademark owner's rights. The court awarded damages available to a trademark holder may increase substantialy with the duration of an infringer's activity. Trademark infringement is a bit like speeding, just because you have gotten away with speeding for a long time does not make it legal and when you are caught speeding you will pay the price.

or

The U.S. Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation has prevailed in 100% of all cases where it sought relief from individuals and organizations engaged in trademark infringement for use of the trademarked phrase MOO DUK KWAN the trademarked FIST LOGO and the service mark SOO BAHK DO. Furthermore, unauthorized "usage" of a trademark by an infringer is still a violation of federal trademark law regardless of the duration of infringement. Any "usage" of phrases or emblems that are confusingly similar to a registered trademark will be held by the courts as a violation of the trademark owner's rights. The court awarded damages available to a trademark holder may increase substantialy with the duration of an infringer's activity. Trademark infringement is a bit like speeding, just because you have gotten away with speeding for a long time does not make it legal and when you are caught speeding you will pay the price. http://soobahkdo.editme.com/TrademarksAndLogosPublic

````Phil Duncan, Executive Administrator USSBDMDK Federation 2007-11-30

a polite (or in my opinion coherent) complaint?--Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's not get into whether those prior "warnings", or "threats", or whatever they should be called were appropriate or not, I think we're close to resolving this. SooBahkDo, I did previously say, and I do believe, that it is appropriate to mention the trademark ownership of an organization. However, I need you to understand the difference between noting a fact about an organization's trademark ownership, such as what currently appears in this article, and including a warning about trademark ownership, as you did here, which is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. If you do understand that difference, and you are satisfied with the way the material is currently presented here in the Moo Duk Kwan article, then I think we've settled this. Otherwise, please voice any concerns you have remaining. Bradford44 (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the difference and ask you to understand those postings were not directed at editors, rather they were intended to emphasize facts that are relative to trademarks that readers should know and it is a reasonable, prudent and responsible action for wikipedia editors to assure that articles inform readers of the aspects of trademarks and the owner's rights on an article page especially when that page is named with the trademark as is the case with the Moo Duk Kwan page. MOS:TM

Someone did a relatively nice job on the Soo Bahk Do page by posting,

"Moo Duk Kwan and the fist logo are trademarks of the U.S. Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation. and Soo Bahk Do is a service mark." with links from the term "trademark" to the wikipedia article of the same name, a link from the term "service mark" to the wikipedia page with the same name and they even courteously linked the organization name to the organization website. The statement could be improved by including serial number citations and as has been nicely done on the Moo Duk Kwan page. If that statement with citations appears at the top of the wikipedia Moo Duk Kwan page so a reader is informed BEFORE reading the page, then at that point readers have access to the relevant information my posts have been advocating. This is no more than the way information appears on other pages with trademark names like Coca Cola or Rolex.

The trademark ownership statement with citations and links to the trademark page positioned in the introduction at the top of the Moo Duk Kwan page would satisfy my concerns about this particular issue on the Moo Duk Kwan page.

That all said, and I have not raised this issue pending some concensus on the first issue: technically since Moo Duk Kwan is a trademark like Coca Cola or Rolex, the wikipedia page by the same name should present page content in full compliance with MOS:TM and should do so neutrally and in a manner that is not potentially harmful to the trademark owner's rights. For example statements representing that there are "two" Moo Duk Kwan's impinge upon the trademark owner's right to be exclusively identified by their mark. However, a slightly modified statement stating that there are individuals unaffiliated with the trademark owner who may have displayed or do display the mark would more accurately describe the actual state of affairs and does not as blatantly impinge upon the trademark owner's rights.

A neutral article would respect the trademark owner's rights and would not be inadvertently encouraging trademark infringement which is basically another form of identity theft whereby trademark infringers represent themselves to the public using another's identify, i.e. trademark.

Whether or not a particular individual or organization's use of a trademark is authorized or licensed or not is a business matter between the user and the trademark owner and may or may not be public knowledge.

Perhaps as time permits, I'll propose some edits. SooBahkDo (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tidied up my original bits and your refs (why I didn't think to put them in refs I don't know) and have put a variant on all three related articles, hope this sorts things out.

p.s. when we've had a positive response from everyone involved can we archive this as it is currently swamping the a talk page. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the improved trademark ownership statements. I am amenabe to archiving this page when we have consensus on two other issues.

Please understand that I am only seeking reasonable and prudent respect for the trademark owner's rights in the context of articles on wikipedia. (3 to be exact) I do not expect wikipedia to endorse or pass judgement on aspects of trademark law; however, it is prudent and reasonable in articles to present certain information and adhere to MOS:TM in a manner such that wikipedia articles do not result in the reverse of endorsement, which is the degradation of a trademark owner's rights by allowing unverifiable, misinformed or tortuous statements to go unchallenged.

For example, a statement like the heading appearing on the Moo Duk Kwan page stating that the Moo Duk Kwan is split into two groups (or any more than one) is unverifiable in that it can be dispproved by the existence of valid ownership of the Moo Duk Kwan phrase which assures the trademark owner of unique association with the trademark. An improved opening statement on the Moo Duk Kwan page might assert something more neutral to the trademark owner's rights and which does not impinge upon them. Perhaps, something like, "A number of former Moo Duk Kwan practitioners have/did embrace a different martial art called Tae Kwon Do." ("former" being a key indicator) Language something like this more accurately reflects what transpired in history and does not pass judgement for or against the trademark, and it respects the trademark owner's rights while describing what transpired. Additionally, the box on the pages asserts "no single headmaster" when in fact the trademark owner recognizes only a single headmaster of the Moo Duk Kwan martial art system, H.C. Hwang.

The proposed language change for the opening text on the page does not pass judgement upon whether "former" Moo Duk Kwan practitioners (or others) may be using the Moo Duk Kwan name and/or logo with or without authorization, nor does it suggest that they might be violating any laws. As I said before, those who have a legitimate license for Moo Duk Kwan trademark use is a private business matter between those parties and listing all authorized users is not practical.

How does one go about proposing an edit or change to that section of text on the page and the "box"? I do not see how they are modifiable.

With some attention to these areas, perhaps we can bring these issues to closure and archive this talk page. Itis unfortunate that misinformed, inadvertant or intentional trademark infringement may result in misrepresentation, fraud, counterfeiting and even a form of Identity Theft by the individuals engaging in infringing activities, so when wikipedia at least includes neutral language that does not impinge a trademark owner's rights and includes appropriate statements of trademark ownership in conjunction with known trademarks, then the wikipedia reader at least has an opportunity to educate themselves in the course of reading the article. Absent neutral language and adequate trademark ownership notices, a wikipedia article could unintentionally contribute to those unfortunate activities by seeming to misinform the reader.

I trust you understand the concerns expressed and the resolution being sought. Thanks for your supportive assistance. SooBahkDo (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

<- I see the point you trying to get across but that's getting more into the history, than a trademark issue. You may want to see the discussions below, I'd suggest the best way forward would be to source things from books on the subject. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Commentary & Discussion

The page history for this article is at Moo duk kwan, due to an illegal cut-and-paste move. -- Visviva 00:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed all the political opinion under "What is Tae Kwon Do Moo Duk Kwan?" This section was supposed to be about Taekwondo Moo Duk Kwan, instead it was corrupted into a 3 paragraph political rant.

There I added infomration about Taekwondo Moo Duk Kwan that would be interesting to readers. Petty political propaganda does not belong in the definition of Taekwondo Moo Duk Kwan, only facts.

If you want a gripe section, then make one. --Bigzilla 08:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a blatant error right in the first paragraph, where it states: "Today Taekwondo Moo Duk Kwan exist only as a friendship social club that supports the WTF and the Kukkiwon method of Taekwondo". That is completely false -- there are many Taekwondo dojangs that follow the Moo Duk Kwan approach. I believe there is a confusion (perhaps due to someone not having English as their primary language? Therefore I am deleting this sentence. A perhaps more accurate sentence occurs in the Taekwondo section of the article which states: "Taekwondo Moo Duk Kwan, Korea, also known as the Moo Duk Hae, still exist today as mostly a social friendship club and not as a martial art system." This may be correct. But clearly there is in fact still a Moo Duk Kwan form of Taekwondo, and the last sentence of the first paragraph would confuse people if it was permitted to remain. So it must go. SunSw0rd 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was important to add the history as was written by Hwang Kee himself. Also, I removed much of what is rumor and hearsay regarding the Chun Do Kwan and it's founder Won Kuk Lee. They are irrelevant to the history and should be attributed to a page about that organization. Hwang Kee himslef stated that while there was an exchange of ideas between himself and Lee Won Kuk, and they had even spent time at events in each other's dojangs, at no time was he a student. There is also some dispute as to the training Hwang Kee recieved while in China. Aside from his own claims to having been trained there, anyone who has practiced both Soo Bahk Do (especially the Chil-Sung forms and new Ki Cho)and Tai Chi can attest to the obvious similarities. If you cannot provide a direct quote from a specific person or site an article or book, then it doesn't belong in this record. Attributing it to "first generation/senior martial artists" is just not good enough.

I left the sections regarding those that left the Moo Duk Kwan to merge with Tae Kwon Do, as it is important to have a view into both sides of the issue. It is these experiences and that especially of the founder that made the organization what it is today. To discuss the Moo Duk Kwan and omit the political tactics used against the founder and his students is dishonest. (posted by: 04:01, 5 April 2007 Dynamitemonkey)

I applaud your addition "nor is there any evidence to the contrary" to the assertion made by someone that there is no evidence for Hwang Kee studying under a Chinese master named Yang Kuk Jin. After all, since the study took place in Manchuria, obviously there would be few who could verify it. There was one named witness, a friend named Park Hyo Pil -- but after all, why would Hwang Kee make it all up? SunSw0rd 14:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that is why rather than deleting that entry entirely, leave it up to the reader to decide which is more likely, that A - He lied, or B- He is telling the truth and there are those who have sought to discredit him in the past and still attempt to do so. It's tantamount to someone accusing me of not ever having received instruction in Yang Style Tai Chi or Soo Bahk Do simply because they were not there to witness it.

I would like to point out the obvious: Millions and millions of Chinese citizens practice Tai Chi, what are the odds an eager and talented young Martial Artist could find someone to teach him? -Dynamitemonkey

Every single Kwanjang states that Hwang Kee lied about training in Chuan Fa, that is worth stating. April 2007 Bigzilla.

That is a very strong statement, again, can you provide a specific reference or references? I would think if the other school heads (kwan jang) have all asserted this, it should be well documented. It is true and documented in 1978 by Hwang Kee himself in the book Tang Soo Do (Soo Bahk Do) that the early forms as taught by Hwang Kee were based on the Pyong Ahn Hyung (of Okinawan origin). He again wrote this in 1995 in "The History of Moo Duk Kwan" -- see pages 15 & 16 -- that the original forms were of Okinawan origin. But it is also documented that he did go to China (Manchuria) between 1935 and 1937. So....while it must be true that the initial Moo Duk Kwan forms were based on Okinawan forms -- that does not automatically mean that Hwang Kee lied about training in Manchuria as well. SunSw0rd 14:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it important? Point to references, show some kind of proof how they managed to know this as fact. It's called hearsay, and it's not proof of anything. I've managed to learn Yang Style Tai Chi, and I can attest for a fact that throughout the Chil Sung, Yuk Ro forms and new basic movements that are VERY similar, and sometime exactly like motions I learned in Tai Chi, nothing like them exists in Okinamwan styles, and they had to come from somewhere. KJN Kee maintained that he received training while in Manchuria, I see no reason to doubt it. Number 1) It's published 2) I have heard it retold to me from Masters who heard it directly from KJN's mouth including his own son, KJN HC Hwang, 3) it makes no sense to lie about such a thing. Maybe you should wonder why it's so imperative for a small group of men to try an discredit another. Sounds more like sour grapes to me. Is it more likely that he happened to make up motions that exist in Tai Chi or that he learned them from studying Tai Chi? -Dynamitemonkey

Proof? The Kwanjang were there. They remember Hwang Kee, intimately. Check out Global Taekwondo, by Kyo Yoon Lee, founder of the Han Moo Kwan, page 6 under "Moodukkwan" he knew Hwang Kee real good. Also give "A Modern History of Taekwondo" a good read. I like to rely on the folks that were actually there during that time, and knew him, personally. - Bigzilla 76.205.124.49 05:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't have this book or link you speak of bigzilla, but I don't think Kyo Yoon Lee can authoritatively state that Hwang Kee was NEVER in Manchuria or that he could NEVER have studied under an instructor there. That's just ridiculous. As an aside, could Yang Kuk Jin have been Yang_Ch'eng-fu? Grandmaster Kee had stated Yang Kuk Jin was about 50 when he studied under him in 1936. User5802 05:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

On the comment you make bigzilla that most of the Kwan masters knew Hwang Kee, I'm not denying that they did; but he trained in china earlier on. This was before he became well aquainted with with the other kwan masters. 63.93.96.62 (talk) 28 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 06:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested Section

I'm somewhat familiar with the "Moo Duk Kwan Tae Kwon Do" that was brought to the U.S. in 1964 (I think) by Richard Chun (who came to study at NYU, if I'm not mistaken). Is he the first to bring MDK to the U.S.? What is the his current status (I'm pretty sure he's still alive) in relationship to the founders and current organizations of MDK that are discussed in the article? Is he, or MDK's influence in the U.S., notable enough to be worth mentioning in the article? Just wondering - maybe someone could write a section on this. Bradford44 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a bio on him here: Richard Chun SunSw0rd 16:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The US was exposed to MDK training well before that. I don't have sources ready at hand with me, but exposure to Korean Martial arts started in the Korean war. Cut down versions of the MDK were taught to soldiers, and its rumored that thats were several TKD branches came from. As for actual schools in the US, I'm near positive that they were before the 1964, I have met SBD masters that have been training in the US for fifty years. 63.93.96.62 (talk) 29 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 06:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Takeover

The article appears to have been changed from a genreral one to one on a spesific organisation, i'm going to need a good reason not to revert it back to previous version, organisation deserves a mention but is one side right now. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should be reverted. The "way" of Moo Duk Kwan as a martial art has been carried on in two separate "schools" -- one is the Soo Bak Do school, and the other is the Tae Kwon Do school. The Soo Bak Do school has trademarked several phrases (see my comments in the discussion above regarding that). However both descendant schools are valid inheritors of this martial art.

The statement "...World Moo Duk Kwan, Inc., an organization charted by the Founder Hwang Kee and his officially endorsed successors and registered in the nations of Korea, the U.S. as well as those countries in which officially designated member organizations exist." is very POV and political. The simple fact is that the majority of Hwang Kee's students (and that was the vast majority) went into the Tae Kwon Do branch. That is simple historical fact, and is not disputed. They took the art with them. Also non disputed fact. So regardless of the Soo Bak Do commercial perspective, the whole "officially endorsed successors" is just cow flop. I recommended returning the article to the NPOV. SunSw0rd 19:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Going to revert if I haven't heard complaint by Friday --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you on not letting the organization take this one over Nate. I rewrote the intro a little more even.User5802 05:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to do on Fri, done now sorry to wipe your edits 5802, but easier to build form here than POV version. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 07:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better. SunSw0rd 13:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, I put all of my edits back in the new article User5802 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot discus the history of the Moo Duk Kwan without discussing a history of Hwang Kee. Teacherhancock (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC) John Hancock

Registered Trademark

Moo Duk Kwan is a federally registered trademark (USPTO 3,023,145) as is the fist logo (USPTO 1,446,944 and 3,119,287) of the U.S. Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation Inc. Unauthorized use is prohibited. SooBahkDo 05:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Moo Duk Kwan

Moo Duk Kwan is a registered trademark. SooBahkDo 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem this page is having is that Moo Duk Kwan does not mean one thing. This should not be one article. There needs to be a disambiguation page with the differences. I see the primary topics as the following:

1.) Tang Soo Do, Term used during Japanese Occupation (all the old schools before Hwang Kee)

2.) Tang Soo Do, Modern Martial Art (everything Hwang Kee did and all the independent schools later made)

3.) Moo Duk Kwan Taekwondo

-- note, Moo Duk Kwan wouldn't have it's own page but can instead be included in "Tang Soo Do, Modern Martial Art"

As a disambiguation I propose the following:

1.) Tang Soo Do, Term used during Japanese Occupation

2.) Hwa Soo Do (See Tang Soo Do, Modern Martial Art)

3.) Tang Soo Do, Modern Martial Art

4.) Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan (See Tang Soo Do, Modern Martial Art)

5.) Moo Duk Kwan (See Tang Soo Do, Modern Martial Art)

6.) Soo Bahk Do (See Tang Soo Do, Modern Martial Art)

7.) Moo Duk Kwan Taekwondo

8.) Tae Kwon Do

9.) World Moo Duk Kwan, Inc. - let someone from WMDK, Inc. write this one themselves

10.) U.S. Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation - let someone from USSBDMDKF write this one themselves

Now if any other Inc., Fed., Co., Kwan, or whatever can prove they're notable with regards to Moo Duk Kwan, then let them have a disambiguation entry here.

User5802 09:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

created Moo Duk Kwan (disambiguation) User5802 10:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the way forward, would suggest it's layed out with one link per heading and any alterant names listed on that line but that's more a style point than any thing else. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust, falling asleep... User5802 11:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact

MOO DUK KWAN and the FIST LOGO are registered trademarks representing to the public ONE thing, the ONLY SOURCE of legitimate training and certifications in the MOO DUK KWAN martial art system. Counterfeiters and unauthorized users of trademarks are subject to legal action. The literal translations are subserviant to the trademark status of this phrase and representing this phrase as anything other than the trademark that it is, could contribute to public confusion and could even be considered tortuous interference of the trademark owner's rights. SooBahkDo (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should write a fascinating article all about the Moo Duk Kwan / Tang Soo Do / Soo Bahk Do Incorporated copyright.User5802 (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Tang Soo Do

It has been suggested that this page be merged with Tang Soo Do. I don't agree. That would pretty much eliminate the Tae Kwon Do Moo Duk Kwan perspective -- and, it is claimed that the majority of Moo Duk Kwan practitioners are from the Tae Kwon Do branching -- that claim made here at this Moo Duk Kwan page.

I can't claim to know which branch -- the Tang Soo Do branch or the Tae Kwan Do branch -- has more practitioners but it is universally agreed that the vast majority of Hwang Kee's senior students left to join the Tae Kwon Do branch -- so it could be true that is the more numerous group.

I did find this interesting statement, however, on the FightingArts.com forum (quoted here misspellings and all): "Some of you know I am both a black belt in Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan and Tae Kwon Do Moo Duk Kwan. From my experience there is no different between these to "arts" except in the name change. Many of Master Hwang Kee students who wanted to unify the Kwans with Gen. Choi, simply left the Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan organization an joined and joined with Master Choi's taekwondo, however, they kept there own kwan as tae kwon do moo duk kwan. Basically the techniques and the way the art was taught remained the same but the name changed from TSD to TKD. Then the TSD moo duk kwan changed to Suh bak do but basically the art remained the same with only slight changes depedning how each respective master taught."

So the fact is -- two separate branches, with hundreds of thousands of practitioners in the TKD branch anyway -- so I think pretty clear it cannot just be merged with TSD. SunSw0rd 20:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thx for your opinion. It would seem if both moo duk kwans are the same however, that would definitely be grounds for one article wouldn't it? Perhaps when a user searches for moo duk kwan, it could lead here and the user could then click on the article Moo Duk Kwan Taekwon-Do User5802 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In that context, perhaps then this article might be shortened, and point to the MDK TKD, as well as to MDK TSD. SunSw0rd 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan became Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan via a name change, they are one in the same organization. The lineage looks like this: Hwa Soo Do --> Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan --> Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan. I find it telling that the fightarts.com posting was from someone who has a dan belt in Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan, when it has not been called TSDMDK for more than a decade. There have been quite a number of changes in that time, for example, a focus on the Chil Sung, Yuk Ro and Hwa Sun forms and the new basic movements. All of which these forms were developed by Hwang Kee himself. There are TSD organizations that had nothing to do with the MDK, but there are no Soo Bahk Do organizations that are seperate from the Moo Duk Kwan. For more in depth information please visit www.warrior-scholar.com, this subject has been discussed at great length over the course of several years by those who are present and former MDK practicioners and those who had a personal relationship with Hwang Kee.--Dynamitemonkey 22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dynamitemonkey makes a good point that hasn't been brought up in discussion yet. The change from TSD to SBD was not just in name, Hwang Kee came in contact with the Moo Yei Do Bo Tong Jei (sp?) and from that ancient text gathered the knowledge of the Chil Sung forms and many other things, as well as the term 'Soo Bak Ki'. These Chil Sung forms are not found in TSD and are very distinguishing features between the arts. 63.93.96.62 (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 29 November 2007

created moo duk kwan taekwondo article

Moo Duk Kwan Taekwondo User5802 04:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

File:SBDKICK.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SBDKICK.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)