That sounds like good news for all of us. Good work.

Bambi, congratulations....... This is a great fit... Love entrepreneur content and you guys really bring something to them... good stuff... tom

The linkage makes sense on a first pass. I am keen to watch where it goes from here. It's very entrepreneurial, no?

Congrats, makes me wonder whether thenextwomen.com, as online biz. mag. is a good fit for the women video's of Vator. hop on a plane to London?

Well done! Congratulations!

HI, Simone: Sounds good. I've been meaning to make it to London. :-)

I am keen too! And, yes -- so entrepreneurial :-)

Thanks, Tom It is a great fit. It's only going to help bring more exposure to the entrepreneurs on Vator! And, hopefully we can bring a bit of Silicon Valley to Entrepreneur readers!

Hi, Peter: It is good news for all of us! It's especially good for the contributors in VatorNews who are doing video for us!

Hey that's great news Bambi! This could really develop into something spectacular. We're all behind you and the team (and behind Entrepreneur now as well).

Great news? Apparently most of you are totally unaware of Entrepreneur magazine's fraudulent history, and their aggressive efforts to monopolize the word "entrepreneur" through a decades long campaign of targeting and bullying small entrepreneurs. Entrepreneur magazine desperately tries to hide their fraudulent and egregious conduct from public view, but it got them a place in the award-winning book, "Brand Name Bullies."

scott, why you gotta be a playa hata??? ;-) i think this is great news for both vator and entrepreneur - great fit - i'm looking forward to seeing where this partnership can go.

Hi Ezra, "playa hata"? Actually, I'm an entrepreneur luvva. Are your opinions being influenced by the fact that you're married to Bambi Francisco? It's admiral that you're sticking up for her business. Seriously. But it's not admiral (or wise) for you to defend Entrepreneur magazine if you haven't researched their background and business practices. What do you really know about them? Apparently, you don't know much about them, trademark law or brand name bullies. Can't you stick up for Bambi's business without blindly defending Entrepreneur magazine? Unlike her husband, I've provided Bambi with information about Entrepreneur magazine's business practices and legal attacks against small entrepreneurs who dare use the word entrepreneur. As an investor, I expect that you know how to research companies. So I suggest that you use that knowledge to research Entrepreneur magazine before making any more comments. And would you feel differently if say "Investor" magazine trademarked the word investor and started predatory legal attacks against small co's that use the word investor? Of course you would. So how come you don't have a problem with Entrepreneur magazine trademarking the word entrepreneur or their predatory legal attacks against small co's that use the word entrepreneur?

I think it's awesome, Bambi. As well, Scott made a good point about Entrepeneur's egregious behavior. However, I don't see the connection between the two. One conversation has to do with apples and the other one has to do with oranges. Perhaps Scott's comments may have a tempering effect on Entrepreneur.com's going forward behavior.

Hehe!, I viewed 2 videos. The 1st one was Danny Simon and my reaction without having to read Scotts contribution to this article was the same as Scotts. I am wired like Gerd Leonhard -not Bill Gates and licensing. I will extinguish my temptation...now...ok...thats better. However the 2nd video was concise, motivating, informative and entertaining. http://tinyurl.com/8m8zvh ..... I remember Entrepreneur from the early 90s. Still dig the content at Vator.tv over Entrepreneur.com though. Especially since Bambi is virtually getting airbrushed on to our laptops lately. Oops?

As a staunch fan of Vator.tv, it should be known that there are clearly two sides to Mr. Smith's story. From a 2004 press release by Entrepreneur Media: In 1998, Entrepreneur Media filed this lawsuit in federal court against Scott Smith doing business as EntrepreneurPR, seeking to protect its trademark from illegal use. In 2000, a federal court granted Entrepreneur Media summary judgment. Smith appealed and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to district court for a trial on questions of fact. In that trial, Judge Cooper found that there was "substantial evidence of actual confusion," and that a significant number of Smith's clients, whom the Judge found to be "very credible," had been misled by Smith into believing that there was an affiliation between Entrepreneur Media and EntrepreneurPR. Judge Cooper concluded that these third-party witnesses "were almost uniform in their position that they never would have paid any money to defendant [Smith] had they known he was not connected with plaintiff [Entrepreneur Media]." http://www.ereleases.com/pr/2004-06-18e.html

Gary: Thanks for doing your homework. This puts Mr. Smith's comments into perspective.

Hey, Scott: I'm not an expert by any means. But I actually have read a little about trademark law, given Vator's name, which is also the name of a boating company. But the boating company does not have a trademark because in order to serve as a trademark, a mark must be distinctive. That name doesn't fall under any "distinctive" marks. I've not studied your case, but Entrepreneur has a descriptive mark that has acquired a secondary meaning. Therefore if a company using the name Entrepreneur in the connection with a sale of a good, and it causes "confusion" on the part of the consumer, there is a case for trademark infringement. Just my 2 cents.

Hi Gary, glad to hear that you're a staunch fan of Vator.tv. But what does that have to do with Entrepreneur mag's unethical and fraudulent business practices or their efforts to monopolize the word entrepreneur? In case you don't know, I can tell you: it means that according to Entrepreneur mag's (claimed) trademark rights, Vator.tv, along with several of its members, are knowingly and intentionally, infringing Entrepreneur mag's trademark rights. They're probably aware of Entrepreneur mag, yet they're still commercially using the word entrepreneur w/o Entrepreneur mag's permission or license. And per U.S. trademark law, Entrepreneur mag must take timely and aggressive legal action against infringers or they risk losing their trademarks (if you don't know this, or believe me, just ask Entrepreneur mag). For example, Vator.tv's tagline is "voice of the entrepreneur," use of the word entrepreneur that I'm sure is w/o Entrepreneur mag's permission (although Vator.tv could possibly argue that it's "fair use"). And Vator.tv members such as Entrepreneur Commons, SFentrepreneur.com and Stanford Entrepreneurship Week, are also infringing Entrepreneur mag's ridiculous trademark claims. So despite what was clearly an erroneous ruling by a judge who's admitted in open court that she doesn't know anything about intellectual property law (there was no jury of my peers), your time and attention would be much better spent investigating Entrepreneur mag's trademark claims and predatory attacks against small entrepreneurs, instead of trying to challenge one of very few entrepreneurs you'll ever know who's willing and able to fight a David vs Goliath battle against a brand name bully such as Entrepreneur magazine (who by the way I can show perpetrated a fraud on the Court in my case, as well as against the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to get and maintain their trademarks). Don't get me wrong, I don't blame you for being so confused about Entrepreneur mag's trademark claims, or the nonsensical ruling that an ill-prepared or perhaps biased judge issued. Entrepreneur mag and its attorneys have spent decades and millions of dollars bullying and confusing otherwise intelligent and well-reasoned people about their so-called trademark rights. However, I am in possession of documents from Entrepreneur mag's attorneys that unbelievably claim that their trademark rights have no limit, and extend into and include, all goods and services. If any other magazine or company made such outrageous claims for occupational words such as investor, founder or journalist, I know you wouldn't be so forgiving or confused. So, and as an "entrepreneur," please explain how you can be okay with Entrepreneur mag's claims on the word entrepreneur, a word they didn't even create, and that predates them by well over 100 years? By the way instead of relying on statements from one of Entrepreneur mag's boastful press releases, try asking them to provide the names and contact info of their "witnesses" so you can hear firsthand how lacking in credibility they are. I doubt that they will provide you that info because they probably don't trust their own witnesses. But I can tell you that none of their witnesses could explain to the Court why they never told us they were supposedly confused, and only made such claims several years later, and after Entrepreneur mag's attorneys repeatedly contacted them, possibly telling them they could get out of owing my company the thousands they owed us for unpaid bills if they could testify they had been confused between a PR firm for entrepreneurs, and a magazine for entrepreneurs (their witnesses were former, deadbeat clients of ours who admitted under oath that they owed my company lots of money, and could not explain why they never said anything about supposedly being confused until contacted by Entrepreneur mag's attorneys years later, so as you can surely understand now, most judges would have ruled that they were not credible).

Hi Bambi, it's obviously not your fault that Entrepreneur mag has such a history of unethical and fraudulent business practices. But as you know, you must take the bad with the good when partnering with other people or companies. That's why it's so important to exercise due diligence when considering new partnerships. As far as trademark law, stick with your day job! :) Comparing "Vator" to "Entrepreneur" trademarks is even a further stretch than comparing apples to oranges. Vator is not a common dictionary word, and has no meaning beyond whatever meaning someone attaches to it through commercial use. Entrepreneur however, is a generic and French-derived dictionary word with a generally accepted definition the world over: "A person who organizes, operates, and assumes the risk for a business venture." So when you or anyone else uses the word entrepreneur, it is not as Entrepreneur magazine claims, distinctive to Entrepreneur mag, or likely to cause statistically significant consumer confusion. In fact, I bet you can't name a single user of the word entrepreneur who doesn't use the word based on its dictionary definition, including my pals at Entrepreneur mag, a magazine wholly based on content about entrepreneurs that targets entrepreneurs. Try this, insert truly strong and distinctive trademarks instead of entrepreneur when analyzing Entrepreneur mag's distinctiveness claims. For example, Vator.tv's tagline is "voice of the entrepreneur." I believe you chose that tagline because you want people to see that Vator.tv is the voice of people who consider themselves to be entrepreneurs, and your selection of that tagline had nothing to do with Entrepreneur mag or its trademarks, right? However, if your tagline was instead something like "voice of the mcdonald's," it would land you in hot water with McDonald's lawyers, in addition to being bad English. So as you can see, the word entrepreneur, even by your own usage (as well as that of Vator's members), is not distinctive to Entrepreneur mag. You probably read a lot of magazines, so you must know that magazine names are almost always based on common, generic and non-distinctive words. In fact, magazines much larger and well-known than Entrepreneur mag are based on very common and generic words, such as Life, Time, Money, and Golf. But as you also know, none of these magazines own exclusive rights to such generic words, not even for magazines. There are countless magazines that use these words in their names, many of them by direct competitors. So how can you be confused by Entrepreneur mag's claims that the generic word entrepreneur is somehow distinctive to them? You yourself regularly use the word generically and descriptively, and are likely aware of numerous other companies that also use the word entrepreneur generically or as part of their names, including in the names of magazines, books and newsletters (i.e. Minority Business Entrepreneur magazine, the One Minute Entrepreneur book, and the entrepreneur@work digest, just to name a few). Hopefully my taking the time to break this down was helpful. I completely understand and support your desire to expand the reach of Vator. That's exactly what an entrepreneur is supposed to do to grow their business. Unfortunately, you've partnered with a company that is known for being an aggressive brand name bully that targets and viciously attacks smaller companies in their efforts to monopolize the word entrepreneur. I think it was even stated in a USA Today article about Entrepreneur mag's numerous trademark battles, that Entrepreneur mag has a "scorched Earth policy." So my advice to you is to proceed very cautiously and don't take anything they tell you on their word. Someday I expect you will be thanking me, like many others have who at first had a hard time believing that Entrepreneur mag could be run by such bullying and mean-spirited people. Speaking of, did you know that Entrepreneur mag was founded by Chase Revel (not his real name, one of several aliases he's used), a convicted bank robber who started the magazine to peddle get rich schemes? Believe me, there's a lot more you don't know about Entrepreneur mag that would surprise you!

Gotta love America. I recall a good back and forth between Bill Moyers and Joe Campbell in the author-centric book "Power of Myth". In the first 20 pgs. or so, they describe our 'lack of ethos'- simply because we are made up of so many ethnicities and that we haven't found the right common bonds except when brought together by war. As a musician I struggled lifelong with "what is original music?" As a 7-year old I was introduced to the KISS machine- an unprecidented promotional whirly-gig. But in my heart, all I wanted to do was tap-dance and be like John Denver, lol. As a promoter myself, I've not been able to improve on the two "R"s of human nature: The recognition I lacked as a boy in my family dynamic and the reputation I uphold with an eye toward that boy still searching for a healthy validation from 'me ma and pa.' .....I enjoyed this whole thread, thank-you.

Mr. Smith: First it’s ironic that you question the relevance of my disclosure that I am a Vator fan after you just finished berating Ezra for his undisclosed motivations (being lucky enough to be married to Bambi). Meanwhile, absent from your initial sour grapes rant was any mention of your personal connection to the issue. Sorry, I don’t want to judge you too soon, but you’re giving out very abrasive vibes. // I don’t know all the facts of Entrepreneur Media’s trademark claims, and do not have the time or interest in pursuing research, but after my initial unbiased curiosity was aroused after first reading your post last night, a little google bubbled your personal contentions with them right to the top. Mr. Smith, there are two sides to this story, and while I really could care less what Entrepreneur Media’s attorney’s documents claim, and other such nonsense, what interests me is what has been decided in US court and upheld on appeal. Entrepreneur Media’s trademark claims cover specific usage circumstances and the court disagrees with your confusing usage. // In any case, I fail to understand how Vator.tv’s business relationship Entrepreneur Magazine is an endorsement of their trademark claims any more than doing business with any company is an endorsement of all of their legal positions, policies, or behavior.

Just want to add that there may even exist the possibility that on occasion Bambi may allow Ezra to think and speak for himself. Isn't that right, Bambi...errr, I mean Ezra?

Don't companies trademark regular words for specific markets and uses all the time? I looked up "Hallmark" on MW.com and got: 1 a: an official mark stamped on gold and silver articles in England to attest their purity b: a mark or device placed or stamped on an article of trade to indicate origin, purity, or genuineness 2: a distinguishing characteristic, trait, or feature. But it's also a major brand, and my guess is if you went into business doing something somewhat similar to Hallmark and called yourself Hallmark-X they wouldn't be all that happy about it. And for good reason, they've spent a lot of time and money building the value of that brand, in that category. And many, many other startups with regular-word and/or made-up word names have the right to build and protect their brands. Naturally, the hurdles should be hire for regular word brands, but they should still exist. On the made-up word front, I still love the case of MikeRowSoft - where they gave him an X-Box and a training program. That's a nice solution. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/26/mike_rowe_goes_soft_hands/ Scott, it sounds like your issues have been a bit deeper and the fight a bit longer than young Mike Row, so sorry about that for you. And I also apologize for making light of your issue originally. But for us Entrepreneur has thus far been a great partner and we're really excited about working with them. It seems like a great fit between our content, audience and brands. And yes, I'm very happily conflicted when it comes to Vator :-)

Gary, I'll check with Bambi on that.

Personally, I don't understand the wisdom of choosing a generic term for a magazine like "Entrepreneur" and then expecting to protect it. However, not knowing the details of the case, it appears distasteful to hear someone on the losing end of a court battle that went to the appellate level mischaracterize the plaintiff - as witnessed in the dramatic overstatement: "But what does that have to do with Entrepreneur mag's unethical and fraudulent business practices or their efforts to monopolize the word entrepreneur". // Anyway, what is the price of tea in China right now?

What's up with all the little apple stickers I see everywhere? And who took one bite and left it sitting there? At our house that'd be a time-out for sure...

In my house it would be praise that it was an apple that was bitten and not a chunk of chocolate.

Wow, I don't recall ever running into such determined efforts from supposed "entrepreneurs" to defend Entrepreneur mag's efforts to monopolize the word entrepreneur – which by the way, have been the subject of articles by several leading media organizations, including the New York Times, Forbes magazine, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and is currently a lengthy and detailed cover story for World Trademark Review, one of the world's leading sources of important trademark issues. So despite your surprisingly dismissive nature, this is obviously one of the World's most controversial and talked about trademark stories. Your strange desire to shoot the messenger is naïve and curiously suspect. Instead of trying to impress yourself by attacking someone apparently braver than yourself, you should be asking Entrepreneur mag to tell you such things as: what exactly are their trademark rights, does Vator's tagline "voice of the entrepreneur" violate their trademark rights, are Vator members such as Entrepreneur Commons or SFentrepreneur Magazine violating their trademark rights, who specifically have they gone after over the years, and why? But that would take true bravery. And if you're truly interested in the truth, you should visit the trademark office's website (www.uspto.gov) and do a quick search of entrepreneur trademarks. I get the impression that you'll also refuse to do this, so I'll just tell you that there are literally hundreds of entrepreneur related trademarks, and guess what, the overwhelming majority of them are NOT owned or anyway controlled by Entrepreneur mag. Something that Entrepreneur mag's CEO, Peter Shea, was forced to concede during his devastatingly bad video taped deposition a few years ago. So instead of getting your jollies by plucking away at your keyboard trying to attack the character of someone you should be admiring for doing what so few of you would apparently do – stand up to a brand name bully like Entrepreneur mag – you should be asking them about their bullying of small entrepreneurs such as entrepreneur James Borzilleri, who fairly and legally registered entrepreneur.com back in the early 90s but was later forced to sell it to Entrepreneur mag for pennies on the dollar because he couldn't afford to fight back (he lost a reported $500,000 or so because of Entrepreneur mag, so you would probably try to characterize his opinions as "sour grapes" as well). Or entrepreneur Heather Tornincasa who fresh out of college, had her business dreams swiftly crushed by Entrepreneur mag when they used their vastly superior resources to smash her start up clothing business because she wanted to use the word entrepreneur (use, like my former EntrepreneurPR name, that was reviewed and approved by a U.S. Patent & Trademark Office trademark attorney, but that didn't concern or stop Entrepreneur mag's heavy-fisted legal assault). Or entrepreneur Brad Wardell of the Stardock Corporation who was forced to abandon his Entrepreneur computer game because of Entrepreneur mag's crushing legal attacks. Or Carnegie Mellon's Center for Entrepreneurship which Entrepreneur mag forced to abandon their alumni newsletter's use of the word entrepreneur in its title. I could go one for days, but if you don't get it by now, then that's because you simply refuse to and/or have economic interests or bias that outweigh common sense, your loyalty to entrepreneurs, or your opposition to corporate bullying or fraud (Enron stock anyone?). Which reminds me, I was recently told by the FBI that the investigative unit of their white collar crimes division is currently reviewing claims that Entrepreneur mag obtained trademarks by defrauding the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, a criminal act that is punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. So are you brave enough to ask Entrepreneur mag for proof that they regularly held Entrepreneur Expo events over the last 10 years, as they claimed in signed declarations they filed with the trademark office? Unless they lied, as I know they did, they should quickly and happily provide you with such proof. You're seemingly too afraid to ask, but if you did, they wouldn't be able to credibly refute my claims that they defrauded the trademark office (or that Entrepreneur mag was started by a convicted bank robber that CEO Clubs, Inc. called one of America's top con artists). You guys are starting to make me feel like Harry Markopolos, the accountant who spent nearly 10 years in vain trying to convince people in power that Bernard Madoff was running one of the largest ever Ponzi schemes!

Mr. Smith, it seems you are addressing both Ezra and I, although if you were to understand my posts, I do NOT attempt to defend Entrepreneur Magazine's trademark position, in fact I tend to agree it seems like a generically descriptive name for a magazine about entrepreneurship, and I did say I questioned their wisdom in naming their magazine such and then expecting to protect it. That same logic extends to your choice of name as well. But after weighing the evidence and the law, the legal system found against YOU (and NO, I'm not going to attempt to retry the case in my own mind through my own research. I don’t know if it only involved the name, or included fonts, layouts, the way your company represented itself, etc., I don’t know and don’t care either). I quoted their press release to show the other side you failed to disclose, that you were on the losing end of a court opinion and have an axe to grind. You are far from just a messenger, as you state. // Anyway, I’m not going to stop shopping at Walmart as a protest of some lawsuit I didn’t think they should have won – or lost (if you want to stop shopping at Walmart, it’s your prerogative). And I don’t think this issue should impact Vator taking advantage of a smart business opportunity.

This thread is four times as long as the post! Anyway, while I think Entrepreneur may play hardball to protect its name, I hardly think it's corrupt like Madoff.

Hi Scott, "Admiral" is a noun which refers to a high-ranking naval military executive. Perhaps the word that you wanted to appply in this usage is the adjective "admirable". For example, one might say that it's admirable that you have studied the trademark issue with such passion, while it would be harder to say the same thing about your professional usage of the English language in a business publishing environment. However, one could interpret the usage of "admirable" in this context to mean that you think of Ms. Francisco as a trophy wife or object, which would be degrading and insulting. Worse yet, you have taken your case too far off of whatever its' intended course might have been. Thus, you are losing many readers long before they get the chance to weigh your arguments about whether or not Vator has chosen well in its' exchange of distribution links and clickthroughs with Entrepreneur. When one's arguments are meritorious, properly toned and targeted, they should also be properly framed in the linguistic sense, such that they might command the attention that they would otherwise deserve. Isn't it hard enough to sell ideas in a crowded marketplace or to persuade participants in an open community space without an impeccable command and diligently assured usage of the language? kind regards, Rich

Hi Rich, wow, I completely agree, that was a pretty bad and embarrassing typo! Thanks for pointing out what I and several other people all failed to notice (which is rather surprising in light of all the misguided and biased nitpicking my postings have generated, huh?). But with all due respect, like other Vators, you obviously can't see the forest for the trees. Just like "Admiral" is a noun which refers to a high-ranking naval military executive, and not any specific source, "Entrepreneur" is a noun which refers to a person who organizes, operates, and assumes the risk for a business venture, and not any specific source. That is the point of my nicely detailed postings, sir. So based on your own writings, you must agree with my position against Entrepreneur mag's ridiculous trademark claims on the word entrepreneur. And since you refer to yourself as a "Freelancer" – a noun which refers to a writer or artist who sells services to different employers without a long-term contract with any of them, and not any specific source – you hopefully wouldn't play doormat if some brand name bully ever fraudulently trademarks the word Freelancer and sues your company for trademark infringement for using the word Freelancer. Or am I wrong? Is every Vator that intimidated by brand name bullies? By the way, isn't it highly ironic that you misspelled such a simple word like "apply" in your 200+ word posting chastising someone you believe doesn't possess an "impeccable command and diligently assured usage of the language"? (damn it!) I guess this is another instance of the pot calling the kettle black. And I'm curious, how could you criticize my command of the English language, but not Ezra's strange use of slang such as "playa hata"? :)

If the abuse of copyright and trademark laws is “the trees”, then the abuse of economic power to manipulate everyone and everything is “the forest”. If we become so obsessed with each individual abuse of power, then we are missing the forest through the trees: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/can%27t_see_the_trees_for_the_forest The irony is far from being lost on me. For example, while better WYSIWYG text editing capabilities in the VatorTV comment submission system might arrest misspellings (i.e. help us see the trees)”, it wouldn’t semantically decipher our intentions, rescue us from incorrect usages, or steer us clear of disconnected tangents that distract our readers from our intended logical thread (i.e. help us to see the “forest”) . I am a consultant and innovator, though neither an employee of nor contractor to VatorTV. I have been in the media, marketing, entertainment, IT, and online services industries for about 30 years. The excessive dominance of large and powerful enterprises has always been frustrating for most of us, even on the best of days. I can only hope that we are about to enter an era in which many of those abuses will be removed or ameliorated. However, I still do business with such devilish and tormenting enterprises when doing so is the most appropriate choice. AT&T is my ISP; DISH Network provides my home theater with programming; State Farm insures my residence, business, and vehicles; I purchase automotive fuel from BP; I eat (although I try not to) food produced with Monsanto’s GMOs; I patronize the Google Search Engine; run my computers on operating systems from Microsoft; have paid federal taxes to a government that tortures suspects and shreds the constitution; and I refuse to speak the name of the satanic banking giant that handles my checking account. Take inventory on your own complicity with these thieves, liars, cheats, grifters, fascists, murderers, and warlords, and you will confront the larger irony: Neither you nor I are in any position to criticize other small business people for their strategic partnerships with such behemoths. Ultimately, we will forever confront dogma in choosing our battles and forging our alliances. Pretty ironic, is it not? kind regards, Rich

Others didn't fail to notice "admiral", they just chose other issues to focus on. It is odd how you can label as a typo the same word misused twice in the same post. Some people just can't admit their "nicely detailed" mistakes. Mine is continuing to respond to this thread.

And I think it was entirely wrong of Ezra to use "playa hata". I would have spelled it "playa hayta".