Vulcan Golf now wishes to add a RICO 18 U.S.C. §1962(a) charge.

“The plaintiffs now seek to file a second amended
complaint repleading certain of their previously dismissed claims and adding a RICO count under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a).”

I believe Google using its power and organization to engage in illegal activity. The illegality trademark infringement, profiting by trading on trademarks owned by other via typosquatting, and of course the organization is the Google the registrars and the Domain holders. But my reading of RICO tells me that there must be a vilolent act to qualify under RICO. Can anybody help clarify that?

Here is the complete court ruling on this.  The plaintife has asked to add a RICO count?  More on that later.

Judge Blanche Manning of the Northern District Federal Court in Illinois ruled that there was sufficient cause to move forward in the case brought by Vulcan Golf. For anyone that follows my thoughts on this they might remember that I believe that Google profits from, enables and in part created the typosquatting problem. Google:

“pays registrants for its use of the purportedly deceptive domain names … uses semantics technology to analyze the meaning of domain names and select revenue maximizing advertisements and controls and maintains that advertising”

What was not said is that Google profits from this action.

Online Media Daily Reports - Wendy Davis