the relationship between Faegre and Judge Montgomery and Judge Davis rather than a bad faith intent to profit from Faegre’s protected mark. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). Purdy has the right to use “expressive domain names that are unlikely to cause confusion.” Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy, 382 F.3d 774, 787 (8th Cir.2004). The Court concludes that a reasonable internet user would not think that a law firm would use or approve of a domain name stating its “love” of two federal judges. E. Metatags Plaintiffs assert that Purdy’s use of Faegre’s trademarks in the metatags for his web pages violates Paragraph 5 of the Court’s January 5 Order, but request clarification of that Order in order to alleviate any possible ambiguity. See PACCAR Inc. v. TeleScan Techs., L.L.C., 319 F.3d 243, 258 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Paragraph 5 enjoined Purdy “from using any
holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion holding that district court must separately analyze whether use of metatags alone without the inclusion of those marks in the domain names creates a likelihood of confusion holding that since we have already held that the concurrent use of plaintiffs mark by the defendants creates the likelihood of confusion the inescapable conclusion is that there was also irreparable injury holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion holding that same likelihood of confusion test applied in the context of trademarks also applies to certification marks