Export Compliance Daily is a Warren News publication.

Entrepreneur Media Sues to Halt Use of What It Calls an Infringing Mark

Tiffany Nwahiri and 10 John Doe defendants have used the Intentional Entrepreneur mark in a manner that violates Entrepreneur Media’s (EM) “longstanding and strong rights” in the Entrepreneur mark, alleged EM’s infringement complaint Wednesday (docket 8:24-cv-01012) in U.S. District Court…

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.

for Central California in Santa Ana. EM is the publisher of Entrepreneur magazine and other publications incorporating the Entrepreneur name in their titles, said its complaint. The defendants own the intentionalentrepreneurlife.com and theintentionalentrepreneur.com domain names, and operate websites at these domains using the Intentional Entrepreneur mark, it said. The defendants filed a trademark application to register the Intentional Entrepreneur mark with the Patent and Trademark Office, it said. EM opposed the application, and the case remains pending before PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, it said. “In light of EM’s renown, online presence, and long history of providing goods and services under the EM Marks, EM is very concerned that consumers will likely be confused and mistakenly believe” that the defendants and their goods and services “are endorsed, approved, or sponsored by, or affiliated, connected, or associated with, EM,” said the complaint. EM attempted to “reconcile its concerns” with the defendants, including by letter, various follow-up correspondence and by opposing their trademark application, it said. While the parties “have been engaged in good faith negotiations and have explored numerous potential options for resolving their differences,” the defendants ultimately refused to cease use of the infringing mark, it said. In light of the defendants’ actions and continuing use of the infringing mark, EM brought this suit “to fully litigate and resolve the trademark issues between the parties,” it said.