Trademark Forfeiture of the Day: KHAN!!!
Wonder why IP lawyers still have work? In the midst of a 177-page indictment against the “Mongols” biker gang, the government put in a charge invalidating the gang’s trademarked name.
If prosecutors succeed, the feds will own the Mongols trademark and can charge patch-wearing gang members with trademark infringement; or, at the least, have one more reason to stop them for a little sidewalk chat. Which is bound to irritate the gang members. Which may be the point.
As a person with some Chinese ancestry (that would be Elie “Ying” Mystal for those playing along at home) I am happy that the American government is finally standing up to those raiding Mongolians who come on their dread (steel) horses. Every time I try to build a wall, some goddamn Mongolian always comes to tear it down.
Of course, the government’s actions are disingenuous — soon NYPD will be able to stop anybody wearing a do-rag because it’s a yarmulke knock-off — but the Mongols leave us little choice.
Said one Mongol leader “To the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”
But we will break this gang. I don’t believe in the no-win situation.
Kirk out.
Freeze, Trademark Police [Doyle Reports]
(76) 
Comments
Lame.
IP lawyers always have jobs. BBBBWWWAAAAHHHHAAAHAAAA.
Elie is a mongoloid.
Lameness aside, isn't it Khan, not Kahn? Or is that dude from Ft. Lauderdale and not outer space?
[D]read (steel) horses? Shouldn't that be dreaded (steel) horses?
Lameness aside, isn't it Khan, not Kahn? Or is that dude from Ft. Lauderdale and not outer space?
That should be Khan, as in K-H-A-N. Not Kahn.
Lameness aside, isn't it Khan, not Kahn? Or is that dude from Ft. Lauderdale and not outer space?
The raiding mongols were Jewish? Was there a sale in Beijing that they were after?
Could someone please explain whether it is properly "Khan" or "Kahn"?
+1 for awesome South Park reference.
Hey MysTTTal, it's KHAN.
Also dreadED.
It's hard to believe you are even a high school graduate based on the way you write.
Nice Kobayashi Maru reference, but it's probably a good thing you didn't try to spell that on your own.
9, there was a Christmas-Day special at "Shalom Hunan."
God damn Mongolian; tear down my shitty wall!
Mystal Xiansheng, ni shi zui bu hao de.
Interesting premise, poor execution. But hey, at least Elie spotted the legal tabloid issue on this one.
I don't get it. This group is a Latino gang. Why is he talking about his Chinese heritage?
Did Elie just write "yamakule"? Oy gevult. Additionally, the sentence that surrounds this atrociously misspelled word is completely incoherent. Additionally, Elie needs to lay off the latkes this Chanukkah. Seriously, LAY OFF!
5: no it shouldn't. Get a dictionary.
The only thing worse than grammar nazi commenters are grammar nazi commenters who are dumber than Elie.
And Elie, I appreciated the South Park reference.
Crazy Chinese Mongolian Jewish biker gangs.
Shut up, Donnie, I'm trying to talk!
I concur with 19. For a reference that most of you could understand, look no further than the Dread Pirate Roberts from "The Princess Bride."
"Dread" can properly be used as an adjective, as in "The Dread Pirate Roberts". A less common usage, but not incorrect.
I see 10 is also ignorant of the adjective use of the word "dread".
Mongols. But what about removing their logo and allowing cops to pull people over because of a patch on a jacket?
Trig Palin did what now?
yeah, its pretty sad when these fuckers from GULC try to correct the harvard grad on the use of dread and fuck it up....
embarassing
Lat, I think it's time for you to assume command of this vessel.
26 - As sad as not even getting the name of the title character of the movie right? Fucktard. Now go back to the fryer, your 15 minute break is over.
Hi. What the hell is a yamakule?
Thanks.
Elie Mystal is Oscar Wao.
So let me get this straight.
Louis J. Desy, Jr., a 44 year old...
http://www.publicrecordsnow.com/Search/SearchResults.aspx?vw=people&input=name&fn=louis&mn=&ln=desy&city=&state=MA&criteria=louis;;;;desy;;;;MA;;;;;;
dork that lectures on G.I. Joe figurines...
http://www.fall-in.org/desy.asp
is denied admission to the Massachusetts bar...
http://www.sociallaw.com/slip.htm?cid=18561&sid=120
for being a douchebag...
Id.
in part because he calls as a character witness someone that has also been denied admission to the Massachusetts bar due to doubts about his own character...
Id. at fn. 5
an the story is stuffed into Non-Sequiturs as a passing note...
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/10/non-sequiturs_102208.php
while this piece of crap story on Kahn/Khan IP rights gets full billing.
Brilliant.
I guess we will just have to rely on commenters to dig into worthwhile stories going forward...
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/10/non-sequiturs_102208.php#comment-797873
Time for Elie to eat a side of beef and take a nap. We got you covered.
WSJ Law Blog had this same story posted at 9:52 and yours went up at 10:14. Why not at least link to the site you are ripping off?
17 - latinos often have slanty eyes so the reference isn't that misplaced.
Elie
Can you find a link to the indictment, because this is an interesting issue for trademark lawyers, and it's not at all clear from your post what the legal basis is for the government's right to take the trademark.
Also, you'll have to do a lot to make up for the pearl necklace post. That was the worst thing on this site ever.
laid off lawyer
Elie Mystal is Oscar Wao.
Is that Ricardo Montalban dressed in corinthian leather.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIL3fbGbU2o
Elie Mystal is Oscar Wao.
Wow, GULCers are really scary looking.
good point 32. Cite to your source Elie. Incidentally, that was the Journal's second post of the day!
good point 32. Cite to your source Elie. Incidentally, that was the Journal's third post of the day! (sorry)
Elie, you are intelligent, but not experienced. Your pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking.
36, you just made my morning. "I could ask for nothing beyond the quality of Cordoba's workmanship, the tastefulness of its appearance." Fantastic.
Vote for Pedro.
Are mongols from Texas?
stop posting in the first person on here; nobody cares about your opinions elie
Elie, start referring to yourself in the third person. That would be fun.
GULC me once....shame on you....
Elie Ying MysTTTal. Man, I've got to give my kids ethnically ambiguous names so they can get into Harvard too.
Clearly, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few . . . or the one.
Elie, I always have been, and ever shall be, your friend.
Elie, you need to change the wording of your opening to this post. The feds are actually seeking to SEIZE the trademark, which is the interesting part of their argument. Were they merely seeking to INVALIDATE the trademark, this would not be particularly newsworthy, as no trademark infringement can be brought where no trademark exists.
Elie.
Perhaps if Lat changes your title to "intern," I would be more forgiving of your writing and proofreading. But for God's sake you are the editor-in-chief, which I would assume involves editing. Your own work.
And that's why your posts suck.
elie, nice chinese references.
34- yea where's the brief Elie --- and 34, would you agree that a bunch of gang members using the "mark" to identify themselves is (1) not use in commerce as it is (2) purely functional like in International Order of Job's Daughters case? ... that is unless the gang members are actually doing something in commerce say, baking cookies and selling them with the mark affixed.
Maybe it's me, but Elie's quoted example sounded like a purely functional use since patches are just membership identifers, not identifiers of a source of products in commerce.
27 - It's "wessel."
Father, forgive Elly, for he knows not what he does.
Father, forgive Elly, for he knows not what he does.
25 is a fool!
YARMULKE
Y-A-R-M-U-L-K-E
When those Mongolians come next time, I pour this sweet and sour pork on their heads. Haha, sweet and sour pork so hot and sticky, Mongolians'll stick ahright up to the wall!
53 - I assume this is the trademark. I found it on uspto:
Serial Number 76532713
IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: ASSOCIATION SERVICES, NAMELY, PROMOTING THE INTERESTS OF PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE RECREATION OF RIDING MOTORCYCLES. FIRST USE: 19690120. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19690120
Registered, not yet incontestable. So there's a rebuttable presumption of use of commerce. But I don't know if the DOJ (or whatever government agency brought this complaint) has standing to invalidate the mark based on a lack of use in commerce.
I don't think courts follow Job's Daughters, at least not explicitly. And I don't think that decision invalidated a registered mark, it just okayed another's use of a valid mark.
laid off lawyer
53 - I assume this is the trademark. I found it on uspto:
Serial Number 76532713
IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: ASSOCIATION SERVICES, NAMELY, PROMOTING THE INTERESTS OF PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE RECREATION OF RIDING MOTORCYCLES. FIRST USE: 19690120. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19690120
Registered, not yet incontestable. So there's a rebuttable presumption of use of commerce. But I don't know if the DOJ (or whatever government agency brought this complaint) has standing to invalidate the mark based on a lack of use in commerce.
I don't think courts follow Job's Daughters, at least not explicitly. And I don't think that decision invalidated a registered mark, it just okayed another's use of a valid mark.
laid off lawyer (sorry if this is posted twice)
On a related note, I found this. The trademark is apparently abandoned.
Word Mark CRIPS
Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 025. US 039. G & S: clothing apparel; namely, T-shirts, sweatshirts, caps, jackets and handkerchiefs
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 74255498
l-ol
We can break this gang!
You can't break that gang!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
We can break this gang!
You can't break that gang!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
We can break this gang!
You can't break that gang!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
We can break this gang!
You can't break that gang!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
We can break this gang!
You can't break that gang!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
We can break this gang!
You can't break that gang!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
We can break this gang!
You can't break that gang!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
We can break this gang!
You can't break that gang!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Do IP lawyers like star trek?
*furiously practices live long and prosper hand gesture for interviews*
- really nervous T-14 1L
@34, probably the government is seizing the trademark as a civil forfeiture action. You kids are probably too young to remember when the government was doing this left and right as part of the War On Poor People's Drugs, and federal courts were full of cases like People of the United States of America vs. A 1965 Pontiac.
When property is part of the instrumentality of a crime, the government can seize it. Since it's a civil action, the burden is preponderance of the evidence, not reasonable doubt.
The government is arguing that a trademark is property, therefore they can seize it (just like they can seize a yacht used to smuggle cocaine, or a house bought with money from selling child porn). In theory they're right, but it raises all kinds of interesting First Amendment questions because it hasn't been done before.
The South Park reference was pretty funny.
I don't think there is any issue as to whether the U.S. can attempt to seize the tm registration. However, the manner in which the U.S. proposed to use the seized mark isn't supported by trademark law.
An IP owner doesn't have the right to detain people wearing counterfeit gear in public. None of the Title 18 trademark provisions are applicable either.
Even someone coming back from China decked head to toe in counterfeit clothing and shoes could invoke the "personal use" exemption at customs and customs would not seize the counterfeit articles.
Further, tI don't see how the government would use seized mark in commerce in order to maintain the registrations.
Even if the government can seize the mark, how are they going to prove infringement? What will be the meaning of the mark in the government’s hands, and how is the biker gang’s use going to confuse or suggest affiliation with the government’s use of the mark?
@74, , that's where it gets interesting. This is not about somebody buying Mongols Logo Gear, but about using the trademarked logo to indicate membership. You may not be able to detain somebody wearing the gear, but you could have the gear seized - would this kind of use of a logo be 'personal use'?