Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. JMD Entertainment Group, LLC
958 F. Supp. 2d 588
D. Maryland2013Background
- Plaintiff Entrepreneur Media, Inc. (EMI) owns eight federally registered trademarks using the mark ENTREPRENEUR (three incontestable) and sells related business media and services.
- Defendants are two Maryland corporations (JMD Entertainment Group, LLC and JMD Entertainment and Media Group) and their president/founder Janice McLean‑Deloatch (pro se). The corporate defendants used the mark ENTREPRENEURS EDGE in domain names and social media.
- EMI sued under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a)) for trademark infringement and false designation of origin; EMI served the complaint and the corporate defendants failed to retain counsel or answer. Clerk’s entry of default was entered against the corporate defendants.
- EMI moved for default judgment against the corporate defendants; McLean‑Deloatch’s motion to set aside default was filed but construed and denied by the court.
- The court accepted EMI’s well‑pleaded allegations as to liability, found the ENTREPRENEURS EDGE mark confusingly similar to EMI’s marks, entered default judgment, and granted a permanent injunction and monetary relief.
- Relief: permanent injunction prohibiting use of ENTREPRENEURS EDGE and related domain names/social media uses; forfeiture of domain names; $18,125.90 in profits awarded; costs to be submitted; treble damages and attorneys’ fees denied due to defendants’ asserted financial hardship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for federal trademark infringement and false designation of origin | EMI: owns valid registered (some incontestable) marks; defendants used ENTREPRENEURS EDGE in commerce for related services; likelihood of consumer confusion | Corporate defendants: no answer or defenses (corporations failed to retain counsel); McLean‑Deloatch sought continuances but did not contest merits | Court held EMI established liability on default; marks valid and usage likely to confuse consumers; default judgment entered against corporate defendants |
| Entry of default / setting aside default | EMI: defendants failed to plead or defend after extensions; default appropriate | McLean‑Deloatch: sought denial or setting aside of default (motion to set aside) | Court denied motion to set aside; default judgment appropriate given defendants’ non‑response |
| Permanent injunction under 15 U.S.C. § 1116 | EMI: infringement causes irreparable harm to reputation/goodwill; money inadequate; public interest favors injunction | Defendants: no responsive argument presented on injunction | Court granted permanent injunction (preventing use of ENTREPRENEURS EDGE, related domains, social media advertising, and requiring domain forfeiture and compliance report) |
| Monetary relief (profits, treble damages, fees) | EMI: seeks defendant profits ($18,125.90), treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees | Defendants: no substantive rebuttal of profit calculations; court noted defendants’ small scale and financial hardship | Court awarded $18,125.90 in profits and costs (to be submitted); denied treble damages and attorneys’ fees due to extenuating financial hardship |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2012) (elements for federal trademark infringement and likelihood‑of‑confusion analysis)
- Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778 (4th Cir. 2001) (treat well‑pleaded allegations as true on default but require proof for liability/damages)
- Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc., 43 F.3d 922 (4th Cir. 1995) (trademark infringement ordinarily causes irreparable harm)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007) (use and application of likelihood‑of‑confusion factors)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (U.S. 2006) (standards for permanent injunctive relief)
- Monge v. Portofino Ristorante, 751 F. Supp. 2d 789 (D. Md. 2010) (default judgment and reliance on affidavits/documentary evidence for damages)
- Microsoft Corp. v. Grey Computer, 910 F. Supp. 1077 (D. Md. 1995) (awarding treble damages and fees generally expected absent extenuating circumstances)