<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Netsearch Direct &#187; Goolge</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.netsearchdirect.com/blog/tag/goolge/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.netsearchdirect.com</link>
	<description>Define your web presence.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:03:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Is RICO being Added to the Google Adsense for Domain Typosquatting Case?</title>
		<link>http://www.netsearchdirect.com/blog/sem/is-rico-being-added-to-the-google-adsense-for-domain-typosquatting-case?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=is-rico-being-added-to-the-google-adsense-for-domain-typosquatting-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.netsearchdirect.com/blog/sem/is-rico-being-added-to-the-google-adsense-for-domain-typosquatting-case#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:34:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rob Sterling</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Internet Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PPC Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search Engine Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search Engine Optimization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[18 U.S.C]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goolge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[racketering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RICO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Typosquatting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vulcan Golf]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.netsearchdirect.com/blog/seo/is-rico-being-added-to-the-google-adsense-for-domain-typosquatting-case.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Vulcan Golf now wishes to add a RICO 18 U.S.C. Â§1962(a) charge. &#8220;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. Â§ 1962(a).&#8221; I believe Google using its power and organization to engage in illegal activity. The illegality trademark [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Vulcan Golf now wishes to add a RICO 18 U.S.C. Â§1962(a) charge.</p>
<p>&#8220;The plaintiffs now seek to file a second amended<br />
complaint repleading certain of their previously dismissed claims and adding a RICO count under 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1962(a).&#8221;</p>
<p>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?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.netsearchdirect.com/blog/sem/is-rico-being-added-to-the-google-adsense-for-domain-typosquatting-case/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

