Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 1 of 33 PAGEID #: 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-4182
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GVERIFIER TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a
`G VERIFIERS AND G VERIFIER PRO;
`GVERIFIER SOFTECH SERVICES LLC
`d/b/a G VERIFIERS AND G VERIFIER
`PRO; SHRI HARI GOMARKETIN LLC
`d/b/a GHYPER, GHYPERLOCAL, and G
`VERIFICATIONS; INFINITY
`GOMARKETIN LLC d/b/a GHYPER,
`GHYPERLOCAL, and G
`VERIFICATIONS; and DOES 1-25,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`This action seeks to stop a large-scale scam operation aimed at misleading small businesses
`
`and consumers for financial gain. Defendants GVerifier Technologies LLC d/b/a G Verifiers and
`
`G Verifier Pro; GVerifier Softech Services LLC d/b/a G Verifiers and G Verifier Pro; Shri Hari
`
`GoMarketin LLC d/b/a GHyper, GHyperlocal, and G Verifications; and Infinity GoMarketin LLC
`
`d/b/a GHyper, GHyperlocal, and G Verifications (collectively “G Verifier” or “Defendants”)
`
`make false and misleading statements about their identity, products, and supposed affiliation with
`
`Plaintiff Google LLC (“Google”) in order to maliciously exact payments and sell fake or worthless
`
`services. These practices violate federal and state laws. Google brings this action to end G
`
`Verifier’s wrongful conduct; stop the ongoing financial and reputational harm that G Verifier is
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 2 of 33 PAGEID #: 2
`
`causing Google; and prevent G Verifier from further harassing, deceiving, and defrauding small
`
`business owners and consumers.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Google is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of
`
`Delaware with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View,
`
`California 94043.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant GVerifier Technologies LLC d/b/a G Verifiers and G Verifier Pro is a
`
`limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Ohio with its principal place(s)
`
`of business at 33 East Gay Street, Suite 224, Columbus, Ohio 43215 and/or 4655 Hilton Avenue,
`
`Apartment C, Columbus, Ohio 43228. Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
`
`that the sole member and manager of GVerifier Technologies LLC is Kaushal Patel (“Mr. Patel”),
`
`who is a resident and citizen of Ohio.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant GVerifier Softech Services LLC d/b/a G Verifiers and G Verifier Pro is
`
`a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Ohio with its principal place(s)
`
`of business at 33 or 35 East Gay Street, Suite 224, Columbus, Ohio 43215 and/or 4655 Hilton
`
`Avenue, Columbus, Apartment C, Ohio 43228. Google is informed and believes, and on that basis
`
`alleges, that the sole member and manager of GVerifier Softech Services LLC is Bharat Parekh
`
`(“Mr. Parekh”), who is a resident and citizen of Ohio.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Shri Hari GoMarketin LLC is a limited liability company organized
`
`under the laws of the State of Ohio with its principal place of business at 4655 Hilton Avenue,
`
`Apartment C, Columbus, Ohio 43228. Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
`
`that Mr. Parekh is the sole member and manager of Shri Hari GoMarketin LLC. Google is informed
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 3 of 33 PAGEID #: 3
`
`and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Shri Hari GoMarketin LLC has registered
`
`the trade name GHYPERLOCAL in Ohio for use in conducting the activities described herein.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Infinity GoMarketin LLC is a limited liability company organized under
`
`the laws of the State of Ohio with its principal place of business at 6738 Darylane Drive, Dublin,
`
`Ohio 43017. Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Infinity
`
`GoMarketin LLC has registered the trade names G VERIFICATIONS and GHYPER in Ohio for
`
`use in conducting the activities described herein.
`
`6.
`
`Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants jointly
`
`operate the common scheme alleged below. Numerous facts connect Defendants to one another:
`
`(a) Defendants share highly similar business and trade names. GVerifier Technologies
`
`LLC’s and GVerifier Softech LLC’s registered business names each feature
`
`“GVerifier,” and Infinity GoMarketin LLC has registered the trade name G
`
`VERIFICATIONS. Shri Hari GoMarketin LLC and Infinity GoMarketin LLC also share
`
`the distinctive “GoMarketin” spelling. On information and belief, Infinity GoMarketin
`
`LLC has held itself out to consumers as “G VERIFIER TECHN” and “G Hyperlocal,”
`
`as well as registering the trade name GHYPER. On information and belief, Shri Hari
`
`GoMarketin LLC has held itself out to consumers as “G Hyperlocal,” as well as
`
`registering the trade name GHYPERLOCAL. In addition, some consumers contacted
`
`by “G Verifier” who paid for the purported services described herein received an invoice
`
`or receipt from a domain owned or controlled by Shri Hari GoMarketin LLC and noticed
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 4 of 33 PAGEID #: 4
`
`credit card charges from “G Hyperlocal,” suggesting that this Defendant is also holding
`
`itself out as “G Verifier.”1
`
`(b) Defendants share common addresses and phone numbers, including but not limited
`
`to the following:
`
`(i) GVerifier Technologies LLC and GVerifier Softech LLC both list the same
`
`Columbus business address (33 or 35 East Gay Street, Suite 224) 2 on their
`
`registration filings with the Ohio Secretary of State. That address has also
`
`appeared on websites using
`
`those Defendants’ business names at
`
`gverifiers.com and gverifier.com.3
`
`(ii) Mr. Parekh of GVerifier Technologies LLC shares an address with Shri Hari
`
`GoMarketin LLC, and that address also appears on the websites
`
`gverifierpro.com and g-verifier.com.
`
`(iii)
`
`Infinity GoMarketin LLC identifies the address 6738 Darylane Drive,
`
`Dublin, Ohio, on its business and trade name registration documents, and
`
`that address also appears on ghyper.com and associated social media pages.
`
`In addition, some consumers contacted by “G Verifier” who paid for the
`
`purported services described herein received an invoice or receipt bearing
`
`that address.
`
`
`1 Specifically,
`the domain
`the communications came from an email address with
`“ghyperlocal.com.” Shri Hari Go Marketin stated in its trade name registration that it conducts
`business through this domain.
`2 Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that 33 East Gay Street, Suite 224 and
`35 East Gay Street, Suite 224 are the same address.
`3 gverifier.com is no longer accessible, but some of its previous content, including the contact
`information described herein, can be viewed via the WayBack Machine. In addition, consumers
`contacted by G Verifier receive communications from email addresses associated with that
`domain, such as support@gverifier.com.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 5 of 33 PAGEID #: 5
`
`(iv)
`
`The phone number 800-986-6740 was previously listed on the website
`
`gverifier.com, and the nearly identical 800-986-6470 phone number
`
`currently appears on ghyperlocal.com. Further, some of G Verifier’s victims
`
`who paid money to individuals with a caller ID containing the term “G
`
`VERIFIER” later received a payment confirmation or invoice listing the 800-
`
`986-6470 number.
`
`(c) Defendants share common officers and personnel. Mr. Patel of GVerifier Softech
`
`LLC registered a trade name for “Gverifier Technologies LLC.” Mr. Parekh of
`
`GVerifier Technologies LLC and Shri Hari GoMarketin accepts forwarded mail at a
`
`residential address in Dublin, Ohio belonging to Mr. Patel of GVerifier Softech Services
`
`LLC, further indicating that Mr. Parekh and Mr. Patel are associates.
`
`7.
`
`Google does not know the true names and capacities of those defendants sued as
`
`DOES 1-20 (the “Doe Defendants”), and therefore sues them under fictitious names. On
`
`information and belief, the Doe Defendants have participated in the scheme at issue in this
`
`Complaint, including by directing, aiding, and/or assisting the named Defendants in connection
`
`with the wrongful acts alleged herein. Google is unable to identify all such Doe Defendants by
`
`name because Defendants have purposely obscured the identities and acts of the specific
`
`individuals and entities that have directed or otherwise participated in the scheme. Google will
`
`amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these Doe Defendants when they
`
`are ascertained.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This action arises under the federal Lanham Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et
`
`seq. (the “Lanham Act”); the federal Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.; Ohio common
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 6 of 33 PAGEID #: 6
`
`and statutory unfair competition law; and California contract law.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`The total amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338, and 1367.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they maintain their
`
`principal place(s) of business in the State of Ohio and in this judicial district.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2)
`
`because all Defendants reside within this judicial district and in the State of Ohio, and because a
`
`substantial part of Defendants’ conduct giving rise to Google’s claims occurred at their principal
`
`places of business or elsewhere within this judicial district. Venue is proper in the Eastern Division
`
`of this judicial district pursuant to S.D. Ohio Civil Local Rule 82.1 because all Defendants are
`
`residents of Franklin County.
`
`GOOGLE, THE GOOGLE MARK, AND THE G DESIGN MARK
`
`13.
`
`Google is a well-known provider of search engine, mapping, web application and
`
`other products and services used widely by businesses and consumers.
`
`14.
`
`Since its inception in 1998, Google has devoted substantial time, effort, and
`
`resources to the development and extensive promotion of its goods and services under the
`
`GOOGLE trademark. As a result, the GOOGLE mark has acquired significant recognition in the
`
`marketplace and has come to embody the substantial and valuable goodwill of Google.
`
`15.
`
`To protect the GOOGLE mark for its exclusive use and as notice to the public of
`
`its claim of ownership therein, Google owns numerous trademark registrations for the GOOGLE
`
`mark and variations thereof, including but not limited to: U.S. Registration Nos. 2,806,075;
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 7 of 33 PAGEID #: 7
`
`2,884,502; 4,058,966; 4,120,012; 4,123,471; 4,168,118; 4,202,570; 4,217,894; 4,525,914;
`
`5,324,609; 5,324,610; and 6,373,292.
`
`16.
`
`In addition to its famous GOOGLE mark, Google also uses a “design mark”
`
`(colloquially called a logo) that consists of the letter “G” drawn in Google’s proprietary logotype
`
`and typically featuring Google’s distinct multi-color sequence of red, yellow, green, and blue (the
`
`“G Logo,” displayed below).
`
`
`
`17.
`
`The G Logo is used to signify and represent Google in compact or space-
`
`constrained contexts. Google has used the G Logo in U.S. commerce since at least as early as 2015,
`
`and it owns federal trademark registrations for such logo, including but not limited to U.S.
`
`Registration Nos. 5365541; 5,520,292; and 5,520,297.4
`
`18.
`
`Due to its extensive and widespread use of the G Logo for more than seven years,
`
`that mark has widespread recognition among consumers as a symbol of Google and its services.
`
`GOOGLE BUSINESS PROFILES
`
`19.
`
`Among its other services, Google offers a search engine, Google Search, and a
`
`mapping tool, Google Maps. Both Search and Maps contain “Business Profiles” with details of
`
`businesses, service providers, and other places of interest. Business Profiles span an enormous
`
`variety of businesses and professionals, including restaurants, car mechanics, accountants,
`
`
`4 Google’s priority date in the G Logo, based on its claim of foreign priority under Section 44(d)
`of the Lanham Act in U.S. Registration No. 5,365,541, is August 24, 2015.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 8 of 33 PAGEID #: 8
`
`dentists, hair salons, law firms, government agencies, retail stores, amusement parks, and other
`
`kinds of goods or service providers.
`
`20. With Search and Maps, users can explore and search for businesses in a given
`
`area. The resulting Business Profiles display certain information about a business, including its
`
`street address, hours, website, phone number, and so on. Business Profiles also display user-
`
`submitted reviews of the associated business. It is important to consumers that all of this
`
`information be authentic and accurate. Likewise, because consumers often use Google tools to
`
`identify businesses and decide which ones to patronize, many business owners—and especially
`
`small business owners—find Business Profiles important for attracting and maintaining customers.
`
`21.
`
`For several years, Google has offered businesses tools to claim and manage their
`
`Business Profiles. To claim a Business Profile, a person must verify that they are the owner or
`
`other authorized representative of the business. Following this verification process, the person
`
`becomes the profile’s “owner” and may suggest edits to that business’s Business Profile, grant
`
`other users access to the account, and use various other tools and features. For instance, verified
`
`business owners and their authorized representatives can update their hours, address, or website,
`
`and they can add photos or promotional offers.
`
`22.
`
`Google offers the above-described Business Profile management tools free of
`
`charge and has done so at all times relevant to this Complaint. Business Profile owners are not—
`
`and have never been—required to pay Google to claim, verify, maintain, or manage their profiles.
`
`G VERIFIER’S MISLEADING AND INFRINGING ACTIVITIES
`
`Extracting Money from Business Profile Owners
`
`23.
`
`Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants purport
`
`to operate a digital marketing company that provides services to verify, manage, modify, or
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 9 of 33 PAGEID #: 9
`
`optimize a business’s Google Business Profile. Defendants market and sell their services through
`
`two substantially-identical websites at gverifiers.com and gverifierpro.com and a third highly
`
`similar website at g-verifier.com (together, the “G Verifier Websites”), as well as the websites
`
`ghyperlocal.com and ghyper.com, and through telephone marketing calls.
`
`24.
`
`Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that G Verifier regularly
`
`places unsolicited telephone marketing calls to Business Profile owners throughout the United
`
`States and Canada. During these telephone calls, which primarily target small businesses, G
`
`Verifier sales agents falsely represent to business owners that they must pay a fee in connection
`
`with their Business Profiles.
`
`25.
`
`Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that G Verifier’s false
`
`or misleading claims include, but may not be limited to, the following:
`
`(a) That unless a business “verifies” or “validates” its Google listing with G Verifier,
`
`Google will label the business “permanently closed”; will remove, “deactivate,” or
`
`“disable” its Business Profile; will delete or hide positive reviews for the business;
`
`or will demote results related to the business in Search so consumers will be unable
`
`to find it.
`
`(b) That a business can only avoid the above issues by paying a fee, with the express
`
`or implied message that such fee is required by Google.
`
`(c) That, for a payment, G Verifier can cause the business to be displayed among the
`
`top results in Google Search.
`
`(d) That G Verifier is a “department of Google” or is otherwise a part of Google, or
`
`that it “works for Google” to verify or validate business listings.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 10 of 33 PAGEID #: 10
`
`26.
`
`The G Verifier Websites also make false promises regarding search prioritization
`
`and ranking. For instance, G Verifier tells business owners that they will “[g]et the first page on
`
`Google search” and that “[i]f you buy the service from us, your Google Maps business location
`
`will come first in Google search.” These statements, which imply superior placement among
`
`organic search results, are false and deceitful. No service can guarantee that Google’s search
`
`engine, which uses a complex algorithm, will place a particular webpage on the first page of
`
`results, much less that it will be the very first result.
`
`27.
`
`G Verifier demands a payment, typically USD $99.00, to “verify” a Business
`
`Profile, ensure that a Business Profile is not “deactivated” or otherwise adversely affected, or
`
`provide search prioritization services, all marketed through the false and misleading
`
`representations described above.
`
`28.
`
`Google is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants’
`
`misrepresentations are material because, among other reasons, first-page placement in Search is
`
`an important factor consumers consider in conducting transactions related to Business Profile
`
`accounts, and because avoiding deactivation or disabling of a Business Profile, as well as avoiding
`
`being labeled as “permanently closed,” are also important to business owners’ decisions to
`
`purchase Defendants’ services. Likewise, the misrepresentation that G Verifier is a department of
`
`or otherwise a part of Google, or is working for or on behalf of Google, is also material in business
`
`owners’ decisions to pay Defendants.
`
`G Verifier’s Misuse of the GOOGLE Mark
`
`29.
`
`Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that to gain their victims’
`
`trust and to mislead them concerning their relationship to Google, G Verifier’s sales agents
`
`routinely use the GOOGLE mark on their marketing calls in order to misrepresent that they are in
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 11 of 33 PAGEID #: 11
`
`fact Google employees or are otherwise calling on Google’s behalf. If they disclose that they are
`
`calling from G Verifier, the sales agents use the GOOGLE mark to falsely claim or imply that G
`
`Verifier is a part of Google, or that it is authorized or endorsed by or otherwise affiliated with
`
`Google.
`
`30.
`
`G Verifier’s agents routinely further such false impressions during their telephone
`
`solicitation calls by sending Business Profile merchants text messages with “verification codes”
`
`that they claim come from Google. The codes that G Verifier sends are in fact meaningless, but
`
`are designed to resemble the legitimate authentication codes that Google sends to users via text
`
`message as part of its two-factor security practices.5 By mimicking these authentication codes
`
`during telemarketing calls, G Verifier’s agents bolster the misimpression that they have access to
`
`Google’s systems and therefore are a part of Google or otherwise authorized by Google.
`
`31.
`
`G Verifier also uses the GOOGLE mark in some payment-related communications
`
`with businesses who sign up for its services. For example, payment confirmations sent to some
`
`consumers are emailed from an address that displays as “Google Receipt,” or from the email
`
`address no-reply@googlereceipt.com, and the term “Google Receipt” has also appeared in place
`
`of the business name in contact information in such communications, as shown below:
`
`Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the purpose of using the GOOGLE
`
`mark in payment confirmations is to maintain the misleading impression that the charge is from
`
`Google in order to provide legitimacy and reduce refund requests or disputed charges.
`
`
`
`
`5 So-called “two-factor authentication” enhances security for an online account by requiring a user
`to provide a second piece of information—often a code received by text message or email—in
`addition to a password.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 12 of 33 PAGEID #: 12
`
`32.
`
`G Verifier intends for its unauthorized and misleading use of the GOOGLE mark
`
`to mislead users into believing it is Google or acting on behalf of Google, rendering Business
`
`Profile owners more likely to believe G Verifier’s false statements about its services and provide
`
`payment information to G Verifier.
`
`G Verifier’s Infringing Logos
`
`33.
`
`As part of their scam tactics, Defendants have adopted names and logos intended
`
`to evoke Google, mimic its branding indicia, and mislead consumers concerning the relationship
`
`of Defendants and their sales agents to Google.
`
`34.
`
`Defendants’ logos (the “G Verifier Logos”) feature the word component G
`
`VERIFIER, paired with a design of red, blue, green, and yellow bars that copies the distinctive
`
`color scheme that Google uses for its G Logo as well as numerous other design marks and icons.
`
`G Verifier also uses a sans serif font for the G Verifier Logos that mimics the proprietary typeface
`
`used by Google for its marks. The graphics below depict variations of the G Verifier Logos as used
`
`on the websites gverifiers.com and gverifierpro.com, respectively.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The website g-verifier.com uses a slightly different design element, as shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 13 of 33 PAGEID #: 13
`
`35.
`
`Google uses the same color series not only for its G Logo, as shown in Paragraph
`
`16, but also for a variety of other logos and branding indicia. The following graphic depicts several
`
`such logos that feature this color series.
`
`36.
`
`In addition, Google’s branding often features the G Logo paired with another mark
`
`
`
`or term, such as in the examples below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37.
`
`Consumers familiar with Google’s G Logo are highly likely to perceive
`
`Defendants’ G Verifier Logos as indicating a “Google Verification” service that emanates from
`
`Google. This is especially true in light of: (i) the nature of Defendants’ services, which are
`
`marketed as complementary to, or even a part of, Google’s offerings, (ii) Defendants’ use of a font
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 14 of 33 PAGEID #: 14
`
`that is visually similar to the proprietary typography used by Google, and (iii) Defendants’ use of
`
`a color scheme identical to that employed by Google for its G Logo and many other branding
`
`elements.
`
`38.
`
`Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that consumers have
`
`been confused by sales agents’ use of the G VERIFIER mark on Defendants’ telemarketing calls,
`
`which in the context of such calls misleads consumers to believe that the verification service
`
`offered by Defendants is provided by or on behalf of Google. As further indication of Defendants’
`
`intent to confuse consumers concerning their relationship to Google, the G Verifier Websites
`
`contain graphics and illustrations whose style closely resembles that found on Google’s websites
`
`and publications. For instance, the two images below appear on the G Verifier Websites:
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 15 of 33 PAGEID #: 15
`
`These images emulate the design style and color schemes that are found in Google publications
`
`and websites—for instance, those on Google’s main support website at support.google.com:
`
`
`
`
`
`39.
`
`G Verifier’s use of such colors, design schemes, and illustrations on the G Verifier
`
`Websites reinforces the false impression that G Verifier is associated with Google, compounding
`
`the likelihood of confusion caused by the G Verifier Logos and Defendants’ unauthorized use of
`
`the GOOGLE mark during telephone solicitations. A user visiting the G Verifier Websites,
`
`whether during or following a phone call with a G Verifier agent, would be more inclined based
`
`on the appearance of the G Verifier Websites to incorrectly believe that G Verifier is associated
`
`with or endorsed by Google.
`
`40.
`
`In addition to the infringing G Verifier Logos, Defendants also use the G
`
`HyperLocal logo (the “G HyperLocal Logo”) shown below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 16 of 33 PAGEID #: 16
`
`
`
`41.
`
`Google is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants use the
`
`G HyperLocal Logo on www.ghyperlocal.com and related social media accounts, and on some
`
`payment-related communications sent to small businesses who purchase their services. In addition,
`
`charges for Defendants’ services often show up on consumers’ bank or credit card statements as
`
`charges from “Ghyperlocal.”
`
`42.
`
`Like the G Verifier Logos, the G HyperLocal Logo utilizes a design featuring the
`
`same four-color palette associated with Google. It also uses virtually the same stylization for the
`
`“G” component that Google uses for its G Logo.
`
`43.
`
`The use of color around the “G” component in the G HyperLocal Logo closely
`
`resembles variations on Google’s G Logo, including those reflected in U.S. Registration Nos.
`
`6,486,503 and 6,030,522, shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`44.
`
`There are other indicia of an intent to confuse consumers into believing that the G
`
`HyperLocal Logo indicates an affiliation with Google. For instance, like the G Verifier Websites,
`
`ghyperlocal.com makes use of graphics that mimic the style of graphical elements on Google’s
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 17 of 33 PAGEID #: 17
`
`websites. Moreover, ghyperlocal.com prominently features Google’s GOOGLE design mark on
`
`its home page, as shown below.
`
`
`
`45.
`
`Defendants’ use of such graphics on ghyperlocal.com, as well as their use of similar
`
`colors and stylization for the G HyperLocal Logo as that used for Google’s G Logo, reinforces the
`
`false impression that Defendants are associated with Google. A user who visits ghyperlocal.com,
`
`including those who receive payment confirmation or a credit card charge from “G Hyperlocal,”
`
`would be more inclined to incorrectly believe that the entity from which they purchased services
`
`is associated with or endorsed by Google.
`
`46.
`
`In addition to the G HyperLocal Logo depicted above, Defendants also use a variant
`
`of that logo without the word “Local,” as shown below.
`
`Currently, Defendants use this variation on “G Hyper” Facebook and Twitter pages.6
`
`
`
`
`6 See https://twitter.com/ghyperofficial?lang=en; https://www.facebook.com/ghyperofficial/.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 18 of 33 PAGEID #: 18
`
`47.
`
`Google is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that G Verifier’s use
`
`of the GOOGLE mark, the G Verifier Logos, and the G HyperLocal Logo (including in its variant
`
`form without “Local”) as described above is likely to cause and has caused confusion among
`
`business owners regarding the relationship between Google and G Verifier and their respective
`
`services, including that Google is associated with G Verifier or that Google approves of or endorses
`
`G Verifier, its telemarketing calls, or its services.
`
`Injuries Inflicted by G Verifier’s Infringement and Misrepresentations
`
`48.
`
`An appreciable number of Business Profile merchant users contacted by G Verifier
`
`have fallen victim to G Verifier’s misrepresentations and paid it for non-existent services related
`
`to their Business Profile accounts. Some of G Verifier’s victims have explicitly cited their
`
`confusion of G Verifier with Google as a reason for their decision to trust G Verifier and pay
`
`needless and fraudulent “fees.” Numerous business owners who have paid G Verifier report that
`
`its agents’ repeated representations that they were calling on behalf Google, as well as their use of
`
`sham verification codes that resemble the genuine codes that Google uses, were instrumental in
`
`convincing the business owners that failure to pay would adversely affect their Business Listings—
`
`and, as a result, their goodwill, publicity, and revenue. Some business owners also shared that they
`
`were misled by the name “G Verifier,” which connotes a verification service of Google when
`
`Defendants use that name in reference to services connected with Google.
`
`49.
`
`Since approximately December 2021, hundreds and hundreds of Business Profile
`
`merchants have contacted Google to complain about G Verifier’s harassing and deceptive scheme.
`
`Many of these merchants failed to realize that they had been scammed until after they had paid G
`
`Verifier. Such merchants report having paid G Verifier for services that were illusory (e.g., because
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 19 of 33 PAGEID #: 19
`
`they did not need to pay for Google to continue to display their Business Profile) or were never
`
`fulfilled.
`
`50.
`
`Defendants’ conduct described herein also harms Google by inducing consumers
`
`to believe that Google charges for these services, which Google, in fact, offers free of charge.
`
`Google’s goodwill with its users, whether business owners or patrons, is based in part on being a
`
`free and user-friendly service. If business owners believe that Google charges for this service,
`
`removes Business Profiles, marks businesses as “permanently closed,” or otherwise affects their
`
`search placement unless payment is provided, such business owners are likely to be dissuaded
`
`from creating or continuing to maintain a Business Profile. Their trust in Google and the goodwill
`
`Google has accrued in its services are likely to be harmed, and they may be less likely to use other
`
`Google services or platforms as well.
`
`51.
`
`In addition to pressuring business owners into paying for a service that Google
`
`offers free of charge, G Verifier also dupes some business owners into purchasing a product it
`
`cannot and does not intend to deliver: a guaranteed first-page listing among organic search results.
`
`By misrepresenting its relationship with Google and never providing the claimed service, business
`
`owners are likely to attribute such failure to Google or blame Google for it, thus further harming
`
`Google’s reputation and goodwill.
`
`52.
`
`Even when business owners do not provide G Verifier with payment, G Verifier’s
`
`aggressive use of unsolicited telemarketing calls harms Google’s goodwill. Many business owners
`
`report receiving phone calls from G Verifier on a weekly or even daily basis, including after they
`
`have requested that G Verifier remove their number from its call lists. Consumers often find these
`
`types of calls harassing and associate them with unscrupulous business practices. As a result, even
`
`when business owners do not provide G Verifier with payment, they are likely to have a negative
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case: 2:22-cv-04182-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/29/22 Page: 20 of 33 PAGEID #: 20
`
`impression of Google if, due to G Verifier’s misrepresentations and infringing use of the GOOGLE
`
`mark, they believe that Google engages in this kind of aggressive and overbearing marketing.
`
`Defendants’ Sale of Fake Google Business Listing Reviews
`
`53.
`
`Among their other features and content, Business Listings display user-created
`
`reviews of the business (“Local Reviews”). Local Reviews are a type of user-generated content
`
`that users can submit to be displayed on a number of Google properties, including Search and
`
`Maps. As part of submitting a Local Review, users may award a business between one and five
`
`stars, and they can also post a narrative description of their experiences with the business. Once a
`
`user creates a review, that review (along with the user’s name and profile picture) is visible on the
`
`business’s profile to all. An example of a Local Review on a Business Profile appears below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`54.
`
`Anyone browsing the Internet can view Business Profiles and Local Reviews, but
`
`a user must create and log into a free Google account