Correction--.

In the February 29, 2004, issue's article "Entrepreneur Magazine weighs in on trade-mark defense," we inadvertently omitted a phrase from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' February 2002 ruling, as quoted by Scott Smith. Here is the correct version of Smith's statement (with the previously missing phrase in italic):

"In their very detailed and published ruling, three federal judges unanimously ruled as a matter of law, that EMI's 'mark is weak' and the 'common and necessary uses of the word of the word "entrepreneur" provide strong evidence that EMI cannot have the exclusive right to use the word "entrepreneur" in any mark identifying a printed publication addressing subjects related to entrepreneurship."

Our apologies for any inconvenience.