'Entrepreneur' a trademarked word, court rules

Submitted by Clancy on August 22, 2003 - 11:53.

The word "entrepreneur" has been trademarked since 1978, and a recent court decision upholds Entrepreneur Media's ownership of the trademark. Scott Smith, who named his company EntrepreneurPR, had to change the name. He makes this interesting comment:

"It's like being sued for using the word 'golf.' There's 'Golf Magazine,' 'Golf Illustrated,' " Smith said. "Most publishers are not that insane. But these people have this thought that they made the word 'entrepreneur' what it is today."

Do you agree? All I have to say is, if Minority Business Entrepreneur magazine and Female Entrepreneur magazine are affected by this decision, I'm going to be angry.

Link via Paul Cox. Cross-posted at CultureCat.

tags:  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
platypus matt's picture

Idiocy of American Law

Submitted by platypus matt on August 22, 2003 - 13:09.

If courts continue to submit so easily to bribes and pressure from big business, I guess we won't be able to say anything in public without a permission form (and associated fees). Really, this is getting ridiculous (TM).

This must be the dying days of a capitalist empire. The logic of product/consumer has extended to the point where even words are to be "protected," bought, and sold. If we don't start the revolution now, we won't be able to afford the term.

Yes, the 'evil corporate empire,' but . . .

Submitted by EMason on August 24, 2003 - 00:09.

I read the article and this caught my attention:

Smith lost. This summer, the court found he intentionally infringed on Entrepreneur Media's trademark, attempting to affiliate his firm with the magazine and feed off its popularity. . . ."[Scott Smith] attempted to trade off our name. Witnesses said he scammed them deliberately."

It sounds like he did more than just use the word "entrepreneur." It sounds like he tried to mislead consumers into thinking his company was associated with the Entrepreneur magazine. That is very possibly an unethical (and illegal) use of trademark. It's too bad the article doesn't really go into exactly what the allegations are. And it's too bad the legal response seems so protectionist.

I'd really like to know if the "mark' they keep referring to is only text, or if it includes graphical elements as well. Since trademarks can be graphics without any text at all, now I'm wondering if the "you-can-only-use trademarks-as-adjectives" applies to graphics in any way.

Technically, Matt, you can't trademark the word "ridiculous" unless you put it in front of a noun. So, instead of saying "Really, this is getting ridiculous (TM)," you should say "Really, these are Ridiculous(TM) times." :) (Score one more point toward being called a "pseudo-intellectual"--see comment "Stop Matching Tense")