Entrepreneur Media continues to sue entrepreneurs who use the word entrepreneur

Got ‘entrepreneur’ in your name? If you publish information to help entrepreneurs, you might be sued.

Entrepreneur Media (EMI), the company that publishes Entrepreneur magazine, continues to file lawsuits against people that use the term entrepreneur in their name or domain name.

The latest lawsuit was filed July 2 against JMD Entertainment Group, a Maryland company that owns the domain name entrepreneursedge.tv.

You’re not alone if you find the company’s enforcement against entrepreneurs a bit ironic.

The company especially goes after anyone who offers services to entrepreneurs when these companies logically choose to include the term entrepreneur in their name. If you publish content about local entrepreneurs, you’re likely on the company’s target list.

In 2010, an Austin man sued EMI after it threatened him over the domain name Entrepreneurology.com. The case was ultimately voluntarily dismissed but EMI now owns the domain name.

If you’re keeping score at home, here are federal lawsuits the company has filed since last year:

Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. JMD Entertainment Group, LLC et al, July 2 2010 – against company using name “Entrepreneurs Edge”

March 5, 2012: ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA, INC. v. GRAY et al – defendant operates NJentrepreneur.com about entrepreneurs in New Jersey (still ongoing)

Feb 1, 2012: Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Mitchell Schlimer et al – defendant has a mark for Entrepreneur Hall of Fame and owns the web site theehalloffame.com (voluntarily dismissed, defendant still owns domain)

Dec 6, 2011: Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Yeung – defendant owneds SFentrepreneur.com (case dismissed, EMI now owns the domain)

Nov 16, 2011 Entrepreneur Media Inc v. Nikhil Vaidya et al – defendant published The CEO Entrepreneur Magazine (voluntarily dismissed)

Sept 8, 2011 Entrepreneur Media Inc v. Lawrence Capital Management LLC – defendant operated TheEntrepreneursBlog.com (voluntarily dismissed, EMI now owns the domain)

Sept 8, 2011 Entrepreneur Media Inc v. Light Point Holdings Corporation et al – defendant owned Entrepreneur-Ave.com, and also allegedly published copyrighted articles owned by EMI on the site. (voluntarily dismissed, EMI now owns domain)

Aug 2, 2011 Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. entrepreneur-magazine.info et al – in rem case against two domain names

May 27, 2011 Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. B-Entrepreneur.com et al – in rem case, domains transferred

May 27, 2011 Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Entreprenuer.com – filed as in rem case over typo, domain owned by Frank Schilling’s Name Administration (settled, now owned by EMI)

May 11, 2011 Entrepreneur Media Inc v. American City Business Journals Inc et al – complaint over the Austin Business Journal’s site ABJEntrepreneur.com (settled, defendant still owns domain but changed branding a bit)

April 15, 2011 Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. SEATTLEENTREPRENEUR.COM et al – in rem case against SeattleEntrepreneur.com and AustinEntrepreneur.com. (default judgement, domains transferred)

March 8, 2011 Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. e-entrepreneur-magazine.com et al – in rem case against e-entrepreneur-magazine.com and entrepreneurmagazine.org (domains transferred)

September 15, 2010 – Castro v. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. – Guy sues Entrepreneur after it threatens him. Case settled, Entrepreneur now owns domain Entrepreneurology.com

[Note: I’m not saying all of these cases are without merit. Clearly, some of them are with merit.]

Comments

  1. John UK says

    What kind of prat is he ?.I hope that he bites off more than he can chew and ends up with massive costs/damages award against him. I could understand if it was a distinctive trade mark but its not.

  2. stewart says

    this is an amazing state of affairs where some one claims a word as their own, imagine what daniel webster must be thinking? lol

  3. James says

    ENTREPRENEURMEDIASUCKS.COM is still available, although emisucks.com is almost 10 years old at this point.

  4. says

    This crosses over into a pathetic level of greed and self-entitlement. They don’t own the generic term “entrepreneur”.

  5. John UK says

    Can only please tell me which Country he has the Trade Mark in ?. I checked the USPTO butcannot find it,many others using word “Entrepreneur” with other words but not on its own. Anyone know ?

  6. Scott says

    Hi John UK,

    I’m the main guy fighting Entrepreneur Media, Inc.’s (EMI) egregious efforts to monopolize the word “entrepreneur” (search for my name “Scott Smith” and “entrepreneur” and you’ll find lots of info and articles about my very expensive 14+ year battle against EMI).

    EMI has for decades been trademarking the single word “entrepreneur” all around the world, including in the UK.

    I’ve also found what I believe is concrete proof that EMI has acquired and maintained its main trademarks by defrauding the US Patent & Trademark Office.

    Hope this helps you and others.

    Scott “Entrepreneurman” Smith
    scott@bizstarz.com

    P.S. I will soon be launching “BrandLarceny.com,” a website devoted to exposing and stopping brand name bullies such as Entrepreneur magazine!

  7. John UK says

    @Scott Interesting. You may know that I have a lot of experience of legal cases in UK and Europe and quite a lot in the trade mark/IP area, all learnt in past 30 years of business etc. I see the trade mark in UK http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E154724 I wonder out loud whether he actually could prove “proper use” WITHIN THE UK ,as if not the TM is invalid.

  8. Entertaining says

    @ Scott

    Scott, I am wondering if you can share the rational for the name change which led to all of your problems with EMI

    Seems you were operating for a period of time using the name icon and then subsequent to icon being featured in EMI’s publication Entrepreneur you curiously changed your name to EntrepreneurPR.

    This is not to suggest the emi should or should not have monopolistic rights to the word entrepreneur but in the current circumstance your adoption and use of the protected term within the smae channel subsequent to you being associated with mark holder casts a shadow on your intentions relative to the your name change and your choice of same

    Rightly or wrongly EMI has been granted the mark and it is no doubt a strong mark. Instead of spending a decade blogging about your misfortunes why not test the mark and petition the USPTO to expunge it if you feel it was inappropriately granted. The fact it that is was granted, again rightly or wrongly it exists and thus must be either repected or challenged. To try another way (misuse the mark…the court ruled you had) can only lead to pain, frustration, and tons of financial and emotional costs. Why trade off of as opposed to challenging the mark if you are such a freedom fighter?

  9. Scott says

    Dear “Entertaining”:

    (Note: Entertaining’s comments appear to be from Peter Shea, the CEO of EMI, who is also suspected of sending me numerous racist and vulgar letters because he is desperate and frustrated by my efforts to expose and stop EMI’s attacks against entrepreneurs.)

    You’re obviously a shill for EMI that’s afraid to identify who you are, so I probably shouldn’t waste time responding to your biased, and very poorly written, comments and attacks. However, for the benefit of readers of Domain Name Wire, here’s a response:

    Name change from ICON Publications to EntrepreneurPR:
    This was done because after a year or so in business, we realized we needed a name that better represented our services and clients (my company provides PR services for entrepreneurs). So after spending several months researching different names, including hiring a professional naming consultant, we changed our name to EntrepreneurPR. Even a senior editor at EMI told me she thought it was a great name, and EMI even featured EntrepreneurPR in its magazine and on its website. If you know anything about business and marketing, you know that being featured in EMI’s magazine (and numerous other media outlets) as ICON Publications, made us more resistant to changing names, not more likely. If being featured in EMI’s magazine was so good for our business, why would we subsequently change our name? It obviously made it much harder for potential clients who heard about us as ICON to find us after we changed our name to EntrepreneurPR. Using your silly logic, we must have considered changing our name to “BusinessweekPR” after being featured in Businessweek magazine, and “NPRPR” after being featured on NPR radio. People who want to change their names because of media coverage are usually bad people desperate to avoid media coverage. Take for example, Chase Revel, the founder of EMI, and a serial con artist and convicted bank robber. Chase even used his fake name when he applied for EMI’s trademark, an obvious act of deceit and fraud. As you know, Chase used numerous aliases (including Chase Revel), to hide and deceive people about his extensive legal problems. My company’s name change was thoroughly vetted by professionals, including a naming consultant and trademark attorney, and unrelated to being featured in an EMI magazine. In fact it occurred a year or so afterwards. It’s also worth noting that I exercised far more professionalism and due diligence when selecting my company’s name than EMI did when it decided to claim the word “entrepreneur” as its own (EMI definitely won’t try and challenge me on that, at least not publicly).

    EMI’s fraudulent trademarks:
    As you know, EMI’s marks are at high risk of being cancelled and for a lot of good reasons, including genericness, loss of control, acquiescence, and fraud. But as you also know, the wheels of justice turn slowly and it can require millions of dollars and several years to take down a merciless and deep-pocketed trademark bully such as EMI. But just like other fraudulent enterprises that were once considered highly successful, such as Enron and Madoff Investment Securities, EMI will eventually crash and burn, and people will be shocked by how fraudulent EMI was and how long it took to expose and bring them down. It’s especially difficult for one person alone to take on a fraudulent company like EMI that can afford to pay a gang of high-priced attorneys. For example, “Since Madoff’s arrest, the SEC has been criticized for its lack of financial expertise and lack of due diligence, despite having received complaints from Harry Markopolos and others for almost a decade.” (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

    If you bother to respond, be aware that your credibility will remain pretty much nil if you continue to refuse to identify who you are and your motives. Why would anyone not an EMI shill need to hide their identity when posting their “opinions” on EMI’s attacks against entrepreneurs that use the word entrepreneur?

  10. Scott says

    Re: ENTREPRENEURMEDIASUCKS.COM

    Hi James,

    I’ve owned ENTREPRENEURSUCKS.COM for many years. And EMI knows all about sites like Entrepreneurs.com and Entrepreneur.net. EMI immediately dropped their 1999 lawsuits against the owners of these domains after realizing these guys had the resources and will to fight back and get EMI’s trademark cancelled. Ironically, and unfortunately for EMI, both of these sites have been used as protest sites against EMI ever since! (though the owners haven’t been able to keep them anywhere near up to date).

    EMI is also infamous for at least twice starting and then quickly dropping Entrepreneur of the Year programs. That’s because the much larger Ernst & Young owns an incontestable trademark on the phrase Entrepreneur of the Year (another entrepreneur-related trademark that deserves to be cancelled for being generic, etc!). In other words, EMI, the so-called owner of the word entrepreneur, cannot even have an Entrepreneur of the Year program because someone else owns superior rights to that name, and is large enough to squash EMI like a bug if EMI is ever dumb enough to challenge EY in court (note: part of EMI’s repeatedly-delayed and desperate response when EY sued EMI for trademark infringement a few years ago, was to argue/admit that the word “entrepreneur” is generic!)

  11. Entertaining says

    Since you decided to respond “for the benefit of domain name wire readers” perhaps you can share the name of the “professional naming consultant” you hired as I am sure many of the readers of this blog would like to avoid him or her and the costly and embarrassing experience you have are and will continue to endure

  12. John UK says

    I would say the only to deal with the matter is if you are on the receiving end of litigation alleging a breach of trade mark that you pursue the matter to the very end and ensure you get them to prove proper “use” of the trade mark exactly as granted. If they issue a UDRP against your domain then I would suggest you forget fighting the UDRP and take it straight to Court . The hold of the TM clearly has some “issues” and the best way to fight such people is with a cool head and following strict law and when they start bleating that they want to settle ,say “no” and continue to Judgment. Best avoid all discussions with such types as well.

  13. 2late says

    1 courtcase
    1 appeal
    100s of 1000s in legal fees
    A million dollar judgement for damages
    A bankruptcy
    And more than a decade wasted
    All over a name
    Waste of life
    Glad I am not in Scott’s skin

    • says

      I know some of you are new to commenting on Domain Name Wire. Please note that you must use a valid email address with your comment or it will be deleted.

  14. John UK says

    @ 2late You are spot on. Infact, sorry to say, I made such a mistake in my life.The key is do NOT make the matter an “Obsession” and be practical and remember that life is far far too short to waste it in a Court room !. That does not mean you need to be weak, but just do not make it an obsession and remember you goal.

  15. Scott says

    Dear “Entertaining”:

    Not only were you unable to properly address my detailed reply to your rambling commentary, I must repeat that, “If you bother to respond, be aware that your credibility will remain pretty much nil if you continue to refuse to identify who you are and your motives. Why would anyone not an EMI shill need to hide their identity when posting their “opinions” on EMI’s attacks against entrepreneurs that use the word entrepreneur?”

    Have a nice day.

    Scott “Entrepreneurman” Smith
    President, BizStarz
    scott@bizstarz.com

  16. Scott says

    Dear John UK,

    Some people do confuse perseverance and dedication with obsession. But anyone who’s ever been exceptionally successful has probably also been considered obsessive.

    But don’t let EMI’s smoke-and-mirrors arguments confuse you. They started this predatory fight and are the ones “obsessed” with pursuing a losing and fraudulent strategy. In fact, they’re the ones who can’t admit they’re wrong and instead waste even more time and money trying to put myself and other entrepreneurs out of business (note: we tried everything we reasonably could to settle, but EMI, not us, has kept this battle going by refusing to move on and filing numerous motions and cases against myself and others…I’m simply defending myself).

    As opposed to EMI, my business has always been focused/obsessed with promoting and helping small entrepreneurs. The people at EMI hate and are obsessed with me because I am still the first and only one to fight them all the way to court. I am also apparently the first person to go public about EMI’s efforts to monopolize the word entrepreneur. And as you can tell, EMI is very bad at publicly defending their egregious conduct. They strongly prefer to keep their unconscionable attacks against entrepreneurs under the radar and out of public view/scrutiny.

    Hope this info helps.

    Scott “Entrepreneurman” Smith
    President, BizStarz
    scott@bizstarz.com

  17. John UK says

    @ Scott. Well I tried. I KNOW how things go because I have been there myself , believe me. Doesnt matter if you “win” in the end or not. I “won” BUT believe me I actually “LOST” a lot ,lot more getting that “win” . THAT is what I am saying. Think carefully.

  18. Scott says

    Hi John UK,

    Sorry to hear what happened to you, but every fight involves different facts and issues. What trademark was your fight about? Were you up against fraudulent trademark bully?

    I don’t know about UK law, but under US law, “Any person who shall procure registration in the Patent and Trademark Office of a mark by a false or fraudulent declaration or representation, oral or in writing, or by any false means, shall be liable in a civil action by any person injured thereby for any damages sustained in consequence thereof.”

    Since I believe I have uncovered overwhelming proof that EMI fraudulently obtained and keeps its trademarks, my fight is about a lot of money (hence EMI’s obsession and paranoia about me). In fact, a federal judge issued an order against EMI for $10 million for their relentless and baseless attacks against me (that order is part of one of my current appeals against EMI). I think most people would agree that’s more than enough money to justify fighting back.

    Also, giving up is just kicking the can down the street for the next entrepreneur to have to deal with. So that is a very bad strategy. A much better strategy is for everyone to fight back. If that happened, trademark bullies like EMI would be forced to abandon their predatory attacks against entrepreneurs. This strategy ends the problem, whereas the giving up strategy perpetuates the problem. I’d much rather end the problem.

    Scott “Entrepreneurman” Smith
    President, BizStarz
    scott@bizstarz.com

  19. John UK says

    @ Scott. The one I was referring to was against the State (which I “won” but “lost”. I have sued and won many commercial cases. All I am saying is you only have one shot at this live, dont waste it on some ridiculous TM bully because he will then have won even of you “win” .

  20. John UK says

    @ Scott. The one I was referring to was against the State (which I “won” but “lost”). I have sued and won many commercial cases. All I am saying is you only have one shot at this live, dont waste it on some ridiculous TM bully because he will then have won even of you “win” .

  21. John UK says

    @ Scott. The one I was referring to was against the State (which I “won” but “lost”). I have sued and won many commercial cases. All I am saying is you only have one shot at this life, dont waste it on some ridiculous TM bully because he will then have won even of you “win” .

  22. Scott says

    Kudos to Andrew and Domain Name Wire for its articles about the controversial battle over the word entrepreneur, and for deleting comments from people who try to use invalid email addresses.

    Whether or not someone is an entrepreneur, it’s important that the public is aware of the growing problem of trademark bullies and their monopolistic claims on common words they did not invent. If a company with EMI’s history and practices can trademark a word as common and generic around the world as “entrepreneur,” what’s to prevent others from trademarking common titles such as journalist, engineer or professor? (most people would be shocked by how many common words and phrases have been trademarked by people who didn’t even invent them!)

    The problem of trademark bullies vs small businesses is especially important during these times of worldwide economic challenges. If there’s any time it’s important to help stop predatory attacks against small businesses, it’s when the economy needs the boost that only small businesses can provide (most economists agree that small businesses are the economic engine for most countries).

    Scott “Entrepreneurman” Smith
    President, BizStarz
    scott@bizstarz.com

  23. Scott says

    Believe it or not, today EMI filed a case against “‘Preneur LLC,” a small PR/mktg firm in New York. Among EMI’s numerous and ridiculous claims, is that EMI “…will be damaged by the registration of the mark ‘PRENEUR…”!

    Let’s see if EMI’s CEO, Peter Shea, will post any comments about his latest attack against a small entrepreneur. But don’t hold your breath…Shea does all he can to hide behind his growing gang of attorneys, including failing to show up for scheduled depositions, and refusing to testify at trials for cases he filed over use of the word entrepreneur!

    This is why I frequently refer to Shea as a “coward-bully.”

    Scott “Entrepreneurman” Smith
    President, BizStarz
    scott@bizstarz.com

  24. John UK says

    Have a read of this. Quite interesting and perhaps has some relevance to this Entrepreneur case: http://wxerfm.com/news/articles/2012/jul/05/judge-who-shelved-apple-trial-says-patent-system-out-of-sync/

    “It’s a constant struggle for survival,” he said in his courthouse chambers, which have a sparkling view of Monroe Harbor on Lake Michigan. “As in any jungle, the animals will use all the means at their disposal, all their teeth and claws that are permitted by the ecosystem.” end quote

  25. Scott says

    As expected, the pro-EMI rants that were suspected of being written for or by EMI’s CEO Peter Shea and/or his lackeys, ceased because Domain Name Wire deletes comments with invalid email addresses, and because I repeatedly stated that:

    “If you bother to respond, be aware that your credibility will remain pretty much nil if you continue to refuse to identify who you are and your motives. Why would anyone not an EMI shill need to hide their identity when posting their ‘opinions’ on EMI’s attacks against entrepreneurs that use the word entrepreneur?”

    If EMI’s attacks against entrepreneurs are as righteous as EMI claims, why then are its CEO and attorneys refusing to openly respond to articles and comments about EMI’s trademark battles? EMI is obviously very bothered by the public scrutiny of their efforts to monopolize a word they didn’t even invent…so why are they refusing to publicly explain their 30+ years of attacks against small entrepreneurs?

    Scott “Entrepreneurman” Smith
    President, BizStarz
    scott@bizstarz.com

  26. James Petorvic says

    It seems amazingly obvious that Icon changed their name to Entrepreneurpr so to feed off Entrepreneur’s well known and quite successful business. Any person would see the confusion.
    Smith is a bottom feeder and that’s what the courts have said over and over and over…..

  27. James Patorvic says

    It certainly is interesting that Smith hasn’t carried on his “successful” pr company with the Bizstarz name.
    Apparently it isn’t a household name as Entrepreneur Magazine.
    What little success he had in the past was obviously due to confusion with the name.
    While EMI battles companies as a bully Smith tries to baffle us all with BS.

  28. Scott says

    Note for Domain Name Wire readers:

    1. Are these pro-Entrepreneur mag rants from James “Petorvic” or “Patorvic”? Apparently he or she is having trouble spelling their made up name!
    2. This “person,” like other questionable Entrepreneur mag accomplices, refuses to disclose their interest in Entrepreneur mag’s efforts to monopolize the generic word entrepreneur. Are they for Entrepreneur mag, or for the countless entrepreneurs attacked and bullied by Entrepreneur mag over use of the word entrepreneur?
    3. Is James an “Entrepreneur”? If so, what successful companies has he or she ever founded?
    4. James’s pro-Entrepreneur mag rants were posted the same day the Court posted my lengthy trademark fraud lawsuit against Entrepreneur mag! Mere coincidence? Of course not.

    Scott “Entrepreneurman” Smith
    President, BizStarz
    scott@bizstarz.com

  29. James says

    Hi Scott, this is just plain “James,” not to be confused with the ranting James Petorvic who posted later. I have no skin in this game, and little interest in it, so please be specific who you’re referencing. I thought this thread was long closed. Thanks!

  30. Scott says

    Hi James,

    Sorry that James “Petorvic/Patorvic” may be causing confusion with you (and intentionally doing so?). I wasn’t confused but glad you clarified so others wouldn’t think you were the same James!

    Noticeably, James2’s bitter rant completely ignored the main point of Domain Name Wire’s article: “Entrepreneur Media (EMI), the company that publishes Entrepreneur magazine, continues to file lawsuits against people that use the term entrepreneur in their name or domain name.”

    And I too thought this thread was old news. But apparently my just filed fraud lawsuit against Entrepreneur mag is why James2 felt compelled to use this forum as a desperate and underhanded way to attack me.

    Thanks!

    Scott “Entrepreneurman” Smith
    President, BizStarz
    scott@bizstarz.com

  31. James Patorvic says

    No Mr. Smith I’m not an entrepreneur and no I haven’t founded any company ever. I’m also not great typist either. Sorry for the e that should have been an a. Really there is no big conspiracy just a mere typing error.

    I’m just a mid level IT guy that works with a former client of yours that had her own business before it went belly up like so many others. I’m sorry but she doesn’t want me to use her name but she had a nice spread in your now defunct magazine. I’m sure you’ll think this is a big conspiracy also.
    But she was talking about her company and then filled me in about your company and what’s been going for over a decade. She kept showing me all the humorous things you’ve done with ever attorney you could get to listen and then when you couldn’t you actually would go to court yourself. But recently she showed me this site to show how mentally imbalanced you really are. We got a great laugh out of you responding to some jackass supposedly in the UK at 4:00am on the 4th of July. When most people are have a great time babbling on the internet. But hey your the main guy out there with all the warnings just like the Madoff guy. Keep up the good work!! And I’m sure that 10 million is in the mail.
    By the way,since your all about full disclosure. What successful company have you founded Entrepeneurman that wasn’t based on fraud as outlined by several courts? (Hope your not going to mention the used car lot you had 25 years ago.)

  32. Scott says

    For the benefit of Domain Name Wire readers, and the public record, here is my final reply to rants that are obviously being posted by someone associated with Entrepreneur mag, who is desperately trying to confuse people about Entrepreneur mag’s attacks against entrepreneurs that use the word entrepreneur.

    1) Don’t play poker, at least not for money. Your postings are full of “tells” that give away your association with Entrepreneur mag.
    2) If James Patorvic was your real name (and not say, Peter Shea, the racist and bitter CEO of Entrepreneur mag), then your attempts to remain “anonymous” wouldn’t work or make any sense.
    3) Why in the world would someone who is not an “entrepreneur,” but “just a mid level IT guy that works with a former client of yours”, care enough to waste so much time and emotional energy into defending Entrepreneur mag’s efforts to monopolize the word entrepreneur?
    4) Lastly, here’s another question you will have to refuse to answer: Do you agree that Entrepreneur mag’s owner and attorneys should be “fined or imprisoned, or both” when a Court rules that they made willful false statements to the US Patent & Trademark Office? (as you know and fear, making willful false statements to the USPTO violates the Federal False Statements Act and is punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both)

    Have nice weekend.

    Scott “Entrepreneurman” Smith
    President, BizStarz
    scott@bizstarz.com

  33. James Patorvic says

    Well Smith everything I’ve been told is definitely true. Sharon always described you as paranoid, narcissistic with delusions of grandeur. But all I the real facts I’ve read about your world.
    1 FACT: you willfully and maliciously defrauded EMI and they got a judgement against you.
    2 FACT: you lost your appeal
    3 FACT: you also lost your appeasl to the 9th Circuit
    4 FACT: you went Bankrupt like losers do when then lose.
    5 FACT: you lost trying to have EMI’s judgement dicharged
    6 FACT: you lost that appeal also because the court said you committed fraud and that can’t be dicharged.
    7 FACT: you lost that appeal also in the 9th Circuit
    8 FACT: your only avenue now is to discredit a patent EMI has has for decades.
    9 FACT: your first try was thrown out of court.
    10 FACT: and finally you call yourself a lifetime entrepreneur, entrepreneurman, and president of Bizstarz when the reality is you
    have done NOTHING other then commit fraud. And that fraud is you only DOCUMENTED success.

  34. James Patorvic says

    You know Smith, frankly I don’t care who wins or loses. But you have to get past your belief that everyone who disagrees with you is a shill for EMI. Why would they need one? They beaten you time and time again. Your not even a pimple on their ass. Your hanging on by your fingernails.

  35. Terri says

    Scott Smith’s silence is deafening when confronted with documented facts.
    Probably busy with those black EMI/government helicopters following him. No doubt working for Peter Shea.

  36. Scott says

    September 5, 2012

    James Patorvic (surely not your real name),

    It has been brought to my attention that you are continuing to post false and defamatory accusations against me. Your libelous conduct is in an obvious attempt to cover up EMI’s fraudulent and unethical conduct, and to injure me by intentionally and maliciously smearing my reputation with untrue “facts” (i.e. that I “defrauded EMI” and that a “court said you committed fraud”).

    So I must hereby demand that you immediately post a retraction and apology that lists all the false “facts” about me that you have written and/or distributed to anyone or anywhere, including on domainnamewire.com. If you do not do so by 4pm (Pacific), Fri, Sept 7, 2012, it will be assumed that you are refusing to do so. I must also demand that you email a copy of your retraction and apology to me at scott@bizstarz.com.

    Thank you.

    Scott “Entrepreneurman” Smith
    916-453-8611
    scott@bizstarz.com

    P.S. Below is a definition of “libel” that includes the potential and serious legal ramifications of making libelous statements (based on your repeated and hate-fueled libelous statements, it is likely that you also have and continue to commit slander):

    libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for “general damages” for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called “special damages.” “Libel per se” involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages.

  37. Terri says

    WOW!!! Mr. Smith sounds like quite a litigious person to be sure.

    P.S. Einstein’s definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and over again and expect different results.

  38. James says

    I, and likely the other 3 people still subscribed to this thread, are wearied by the accusations and counter-accusations being presented by the parties and their surrogates. But really, if a lie is told in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, did it really amount to slander? If the only people who care one iota are those making the malicious statements and their surrogates, then the target receives no greater ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt than already exists among those who make the statements. The courtroom of public opinion can sometimes be very lonely. I’m canceling my subscription on posts to this thread, cause I don’t want to get sucked into any potential lawsuits.

  39. says

    What is the point of this thread, apart from now childish insults flowing back and forth ??. Andrew please do us all a favour, including yourself and close the thread. Anyway I am UNsubscribing.

  40. Shon @you dazzle says

    I’m in the camp that what EMI is doing is probably legal but it’s also very arrogant and I think unnecessary in many cases. I would like to see them brought down a notch.

    I was intrigued by Scott Smith’s July 5th comment #22 about the $10 mil. sanction against Entrpreneur. I hadn’t heard about it and wanted to read more since it might be what they need to stop the lawsuits.

    Unfortunately Smith was being less then candid with his statement. In Bankruptcy court documents (case# 09-1117, Page# 33,
    document# 009136142) the court stated that the sanction was not imposed. The judge also told Smith in court that if monetary damages were awarded they would not go to him but the Treasury. The Judge said his lawsuit has no standing in this area.
    So much for wishful thinking. Maybe the US attorney should take a swing at this.

  41. Scott says

    Hi Shon,

    Looks like you actually looked up some of the court documents. Good job. However, a federal judge DID issue a $10,000,000 Order against EMI (and its attorneys), and the Order IS part of my appeals against EMI. For brevity’s sake, I didn’t go into the numerous rulings and legal arguments over the order. But since you seem to feel that I was trying to mislead people (I wasn’t), here’s some additional info:

    After we pointed out to the judge that EMI had provided ZERO evidence to support numerous claims they had filed against me, in Aug2006, the judge issued a $10,000,000 Order to Show Cause against EMI. However, the judge who took the case over before trial, surprisingly discharged the order, even though EMI had made numerous baseless claims against me. The court said I couldn’t challenge the ruling because I was not the “person aggrieved,” etc. That’s obviously nonsensical. Of course I was. EMI’s baseless claims were filed against me (not the treasury dept or anyone else) and caused me significant harm (which was exactly why EMI filed such knowingly baseless claims).

    Since you know how to research cases, I’m surprised you apparently didn’t look up any of the numerous documents filed about the Order, including in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But if you are unable to locate any documents, let me know.

    Lastly, if you think EMI’s attacks against entrepreneurs are probably legal, why do you think that the US attorney would go after EMI? I personally know that EMI has acted unethically and fraudulently, so I have met and discussed EMI’s conduct with several state and federal agencies, including the US Dept of Justice and the FBI. Based on what I’ve discovered, I believe that EMI’s execs and/or attys have repeatedly defrauded the US trademark office and have violated the federal false statements act, and will eventually face fines, imprisonment, or both. I also believe they have violated the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, so communications between EMI and their attys should be available during discovery. By the way, EMI and its attys are definitely monitoring this and other blogs that mention their attacks against entrepreneurs. So they know I have repeatedly accused them of unethical and fraudulent conduct. But a company as litigious and retaliatory as EMI, would surely take legal action if someone falsely accused them of unethical or fraudulent conduct. But EMI has never dared to come after me for accusing them of unethical and fraudulent conduct because truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim!

    Hope this additional information is helpful.

    Scott “Entrepreneurman” Smith
    916-453-8611
    scott@bizstarz.com

    P.S. Since you know how to lookup court documents, but apparently haven’t seen the latest fraud claims against EMI, check out the pretty shocking case/appeal I recently filed against EMI in the district court for the Eastern District of California, case# 2:12-cv-02184-MCE-KJN.

  42. Shon @you dazzle says

    Scott I mentioned a US Attorney because they have standing. They work for the government.YOU DON’T. Your appealling something that doesn’t really exist for you. Read the statute!!!
    I’ve actually taken some time to read about you and your cases. Comment #38 seems to lay it all out. Your upset over semantics though not substance. In court documents you willfully, deliberately and intentionally infringed on EMI. It really doesn’t matter what you rant about ad nauseum. It’s what the court decisions are. And they are all against you.
    The real nonsensical thing is you contacting
    the Justice Dept. and the FBI. And I would surmise they both told you that since no action has ever been taken.
    It clearly appears you are largely ignored until you file some lawsuit then you get your 15 minutes. You are now reduced to representing yourself in all recent court appearences. If your case is so strong as you say I am very surprised you don’t have counsel.
    I believe you are the one that is bitter and it shows in your pro se defense in Debtor’s Court. It appears you used a third party (Mix)to possibly conceal funds that EMI is trying to sieze.
    And you are the frustrated party because of your failure to get the court to dicharge the judgement agaist you.
    If EMI is monitoring this as you think. What would be the point of another lawsuit and potential judgement against you. Your never going to pay it or any other judgement against you. Basically your buried alive under a mountain of non-dischargable debt.
    Lastly, you never dicuss your record of successes as an entrepreneur. Please enlighten us all. I could not find anything positive concerning you at all.
    DOCUMENTED FACTS ONLY. Dialogue is cheap.

  43. Shon @you dazzle says

    UNBELIEVABLE!!
    Scott Smith the “president” of Bizstarz a non-existent company who constantly rants about credibility is now demanding proof and financial records from private companies. He talks of overstating things and accuracy of statements and fact-checking.
    Check out the Sprouter Blog on June 20, 2012 for his comments. There seems to be no limit to his audacity.
    I certainly wish he would fact-check before ranting. Maybe he can offer some proof on things. He can start with his record as an entrepreneur as he is the self-anionted “entrepreneurman”.

  44. Shon @you dazzle says

    Scott could I possibly get an autographed photo? Maybe the one where you have boxing gloves dangling around your neck.
    Keep up the fight “entrepreneurman!”

    “One of the first businesses of a sensible man is to know when he is beaten, and to leave off fighting at once.”

    Hope this additional information is helpful.

  45. James says

    High marks Shon for the info. After a little research into Scott Smith and his so-called company his credibility is nil.
    I had no idea of all the facts out there. He wants to come across as a victim but really he is just a opportunist that is bitter over
    his many losses in court. And I never saw the info on the Debtor’s Exam. How embarrassing. No wonder he thinks everyone is a shill for EMI. I would be paranoid too if they were after me trying to enforce their non-dischargeable judgement against him for deliberate and willful infringement.
    At least if he ever starts his rants again we will have the facts and not just his dialogue.

  46. James says

    I disagree John UK. It’s not a waste of time. It’s good to have true facts against somebody’s extra long-winded self serving rants. You notice how quiet it is on the other side when people can fact-check what others say. But I’m sure Scott Smith would just say he’s not going to waste time with shills from EMI besides he is busy with his new lawsuit. What a squandering of time and effort not to mention the $350 filing fee. I wonder how many aluminum cans Smith had to collect for that???