Feds Still Trying To Abuse Trademark Law (?!?) To Stop Motorcycle Gang
from the consumer-confusion? dept
Nearly three years ago, we wrote about an absolutely ridiculous plan by the US government to try to deal with a motorcycle gang. Beyond just arresting approximately 80 members of the Mongols motorcycle gang around the country and charging them with a variety of criminal charges including murder, robbery, racketeering, extortion, money laundering, gun trafficking and drug dealing... the US government also decided it wanted to seize the trademark of the gang, and then use that to try to stop the gang. At the time, they claimed this would allow them to simply take jackets off of motorcycle riders by claiming trademark infringement. Of course, that's not (at all) how trademark law works.I had assumed (incorrectly, it appears) that this issue had gone away, but Dave P. alerts us to the news that three years later, the fight over who gets to own the logo is still ongoing. Apparently, while a judge issued an injunction against the gang using the logo, things went further last year, when the US government tried to officially forfeit the logo. While a judge initially agreed, he reversed his original ruling, after remaining members of the Mongols claimed that they collectively owned the logo, and the government couldn't just seize it. The government, in turn, claims that the trademark is actually held by just one guy, who has already pleaded guilty to various charges.
Of course, I still can't fathom why the government thinks holding such a trademark is useful. It's not going to stop gang members. It wouldn't take much effort to find a new logo, and the government likely wouldn't win if it actually dared to try to make use of the trademark.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: feds, mongols, motorcycle gang, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Consumer protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's uncanny how the domain seizures seem so similar to this trademark issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nationalize the actual corporations in order to stop "infringement" and "criminal activity".
I realize this instance is about a motorcycle gang, but isn't arresting 80 members of the gang for ACTUAL crimes sufficient?
By setting precedent of taking their trademark, they get one step closer to their vision of a communist U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Domain?
Also, if government seizes the trademark of any organization who's head is a criminal; does that mean they own the trademarks of Enron? WorldCom? Martha Stewart? What about John Dillinger?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Domain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me: I think that often your understanding of things is limited by a sort of direct line thinking that you use.
What makes this useful is the disruption factor. If you cannot get the gang members on normal criminal charges (because they are slick and know how to hide), at least you have another reason to hassle them and make their day less enjoyable. It is another method to roust them, another way to touch their lives, and to make their criminal enterprise a little less enjoyable to be part of.
Heck, if they continue to use it, the government could sue them for millions for violating trademark, and that would likely stick! Imagine that.
You really need to think outside of the box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For instance, they can exercise eminent domain on the person's house and then charge that person for trespassing.
Or they can find something inane and unique that person does and pass a law that makes that activity illegal and then charge him for illegal conduct.
It is so simple. The government should be free to hold vendetta's against anyone they please and act in any way they want as long as they are acting as a bully under the guise of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
** claps hands sarcastically **
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um. If you cannot get the gang members on normal criminal charges than you haven't proven they have done anything illegal.
And you still think it's a good thing to harass them anyways. It's because of scary overzealous people like you that I try my best to remain anonymous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The results are that prosecutors are forced to squeeze through smaller and smaller holes, while criminal gangs operate on a wide scale, often very openly, with few concerns. The end result is the misapplication of laws in an attempt to "get them", because there is no other way within our system that permits it.
Just remember, as you dance around in joy as file traders and copyright violators find ways to avoid the law, the larger criminal gangs are doing the same, and that isn't a good thing.
So do I support the government in this action? Not really. But I can understand why they do it, and that is different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I understand it too - that's the part that scares me.
We *suspect* you are committing Crime A, but we can't prove it, so we *make up* Crime B to prosecute you with.
That slope is a way too slippery for my comfort, even if these gang members *should* be taken off the streets.
PS: I rarely dance and if you have ever seen me dance you'd know why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is the normal thought process on how to deal with "Known" criminals that you can't pin anything on...kinda like Capone, the knew he was behind all of those crimes, but they couldn't pin anything on him because he always used lackeys that were too afraid of him to point fingers. So the best they were able to do was tax evasion...I guarantee you that if they didn't have tax evasion to go on, they would have cooked something else up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think there's a big difference between Al Capone's case and this one. Tax evasion really is illegal. The government didn't "cook up" a conviction of Capone. He evaded taxes and was convicted and punished. It's just that tax evasion was easier to prove than his other criminal activities. But with the Mongols, the government is corrupting trademark law because their goals have nothing to do with consumer protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
fairly sure i don't think it should be done that way, but it seems like the sort of thinking that would go into such a decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Awesome, twisting laws way beyond what their stated purpose is makes me proud to be an American. /sarc
The government got Capone on tax evasion without having to twist the law. Yet, Lori Drew was acquitted because the prosecutors tried to twist the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act far beyond what it was designed for.
On a scale of 1-10, please rate Al Capone, and Lori Drew. 1 being the stupid criminal who tries to rob a convenience store and gets stuck in the ventilation duct, and 10 being criminal mastermind.
We (supposedly) live in a free country with limited government. Even criminal suspects are presumed innocent and have rights that the government cannot violate. A government that respects the rights of its enemies, dissidents, and criminals shows enlightenment. Brutal suppression without regard for collateral damage shows nothing more than barbarism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hassle
> them and make their day less enjoyable
In a free society, the government shouldn't be in the business of "hassling people".
If they've committed a crime and you have the proof, arrest them for it and prosecute them.
If they haven't or you don't, then "hassling" them by twisting laws beyond their intent is ridiculous behavior.
Just this week everyone here was up in arms over the cops in Rochester "hassling" citizens who were having a meeting by issuing parking tickets to cars parked millimeters too far off the curb.
This is what you get when let the government criminalize almost everything. Most people have no clue how many laws they violate on a daily basis just going about their normal lives, none of which are ever enforced. But it gives the government a huge playbook to draw from when you piss them off and they decide they need to "hassle" you to put you back in your place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hassle
I hope Mike gets around to asking you to do a Favorites of the Week post, because I know I would personally find it to be extremely interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hassle
He's been asked. So far, he hasn't been able to do it due to timing. Hopefully in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hassle
> a Favorites of the Week post
Mike did ask, but I'm traveling like crazy these days and would basically have to do it from my iPhone. I'm not sure if that would even be possible.
Once things slow down and I get back home, I'll do one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Enforcement of their ownership of the trademark will turn trademark law upside down. Here you have a group of people that, I am fairly certain, have exclusively used this logo for a number of years. The courts would have to throw all the normal considerations of previous usage by the motorcycle gang and usage, or rather non-usage, by the current trademark holder (the feds) out the window. Additionally, trademark law would not prevent any gang members from identifying themselves as Mongols. It would also be a stretch to say they couldn't wear the logo, although they made the clothing themselves and were not selling it. Maybe we can all agree that the planet would be better off without the Mongols motorcycle gang's existence. However, I don't agree the goal of eliminating them justifies the twisting of law into an ugly distortion. Why can't federal law enforcement be content with prosecuting them for real crimes. In prison they won't be wearing that logo and a condition of parole could be the prohibition of associating with gang members and the wearing of gang identifying clothing.
A similar tactic is using gang injunctions to prevent gang members from associating and restricting their movement within a fairly large "zone". It can also include restrictions on wearing gang clothing within that zone. This goes against the grain of the U.S. constitution including the 1st amendment (freedom of assembly). This is the equivalent of imposing parole restrictions on a convict but without the necessity of requiring someone to be convicted of a crime. Gangs are an ugly reality in many areas. People who are affected by them see any attempt to control or eliminate them as justified. Once, in a comment on a gang injunction article in the S.F. Chronicle (the newspaper referenced for this story), I suggested that gangs should form Political Action Committees (PACs) to defeat any injunctions. I am not really sure that would work but I am sure gangs aren't smart enough to do that. At any rate, my comment was greatly despised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's trademark "terrorism"! That way nobody could be a terrorist because that would be trademark infringement! Terrorist organisations everywhere would be forced to disband!
Boo-ya, terrorism is over!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF ARE YOU DOING WITH THAT KNIFE?
On the bright side they can drum up public support by holding a new trademark/Logo Contest giving the winner a "favor" of their choice. Maybe even a package filled with a "mysterious" substance of their choice. It'd be great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF ARE YOU DOING WITH THAT KNIFE?
On the bright side they can drum up public support by holding a new trademark/Logo Contest giving the winner a "favor" of their choice. Maybe even a package filled with a "mysterious" substance of their choice. It'd be great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/04351314760/bittorrent-sued-patent-infringement. shtml
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/06/feds-wants-to-bar-mongols-biker-gang-from-tra demarking -its-logo-.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the real?
This goes to show why they haven't broken those gangs up yet. And it also shows the backwards thinking of our government to think that chages of infringement will succeed where murder charges have failed.
Considering that some of the members have no problem killing and (possibly more dangerous) dying for their club so you really think infringement charges are gonna stop them from rocking their logos and colors? We're talking about people who brag about being 1%ers (as in the 1% of motorcycle clubs that engage in illegal activities) folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior art maybe?
...You know, like when the Mongols Motorcycle Club used it prior to the US Government holding the trademark (an absurd situation if there ever was one).
Similarly, is there no one in Mongolia who would contest this trademark?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me get this straight
The government can't stop the guys from doing the real crimes you mentioned and they thing the Mongols are going to care about a little trademark infringement? That will be all the more reason for them to fly the colors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I don't understand is when you mentioned they apparently plan to take the jackets off the gang members by claiming infringement. How can the Government claim infringement over a trademark it seizes? I can understand if you were to suddenly sell coffee mugs with the President's Eagle seal on it, that would be a government trademark as far as I know. How could the Government claim harm over infringement here, unless they want to admit that they are in commerce for a criminal gang?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different situation from that described in the article but a creative use of damages to strike at the identity of the offending group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about...
If so, I heartily approve of all of the above. If not, then not. I'd love to see cops ripping off other cops' biker jackets. Oh, wait--there's a website for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mongols TM
First, a TM cannot be held by "collective ownership", it would have to be an entity (the "Mongols?").
Second, if the "one guy" is guilty of "stuff", what does that have to do with trademark?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feds Out of Control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]