Oct 28, 2010 20:01 GMT  ·  By

Until today, no one could have possibly imagined the two names in the same sentence, yet Hells Angels is taking action against the Alexander McQueen fashion house for the use of several trademark symbols and logos.

As The Register also points out, Hells Angels has been very protective of everything related to it, because it doesn’t want its image or logo used by people who may not be a part of the crew.

As such, it can’t possibly condone Alexander McQueen using Hells Angels imagery on its designs, such is the case with the dress in the photo attached to this article, which features the Hells Angels flaming skull.

“The California-based motorcycle club, whose fearsome reputation includes the sudden and brutal application of trademark lawyers, believes the dressmakers, and its retailers, have overstepped the mark with a series of clothes and accessories featuring a skull and wings death head design,” The Register notes.

Consequently, it’s taking the London-based fashion house to court over it – and it says this is more than just a matter of copyright infringement.

“This isn’t just about money, it’s about membership. If you’ve got one of these rings on, a member might get really upset that you’re an imposter,” Fritz Clapp, attorney for Hells Angels, says.

Two items rip off Hells Angels imagery, according to court documents: the aforementioned dress (Hells Angels Jaquard Dress, $1,595) and a Hells Four Finger Ring ($495).

Both items must be removed from the collection and the fashion house must be held accountable, since the symbols are protected by the US Patent and Trademark Office.

“From decades of notoriety, the HAMC marks have acquired very widespread public recognition, consequently they evoke strong and immediate reactions whenever used,” Clapp says in a separate statement.

“The impact of these marks is virtually incomparable, and as a result they have great commercial value,” he adds.

Representatives for Alexander McQueen, whose eponymous founder took his own life in February 2010, have not been immediately available for comment for the action taken against the house.