SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Business Wire Falls for April Fools Prank, Sues FBNers
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: WEBNODE3 who wrote (910)5/1/1999 1:13:00 AM
From: Mama Bear  Read Replies (2) of 3795
 
" At least, that is the suggestion of one court that refused to
enjoin a Web site titled "Bally sucks," which was critical of the Bally
national health club company.

In that case, the court turned back a dilution claim on the ground that the
speech was non-commercial and was constitutionally protected. Bally
Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Farber, 1998 WL 897335 (C.D. Cal., Dec.
21, 1998). Although the defendant did not use the BALLY mark in his
domain name, the court noted that, even if he had, it would not
necessarily violate dilution law because "[n]o reasonable prudent Internet
user would believe that 'Ballysucks.com' is the official Bally site or is
sponsored by Bally." Id. at *4 & n.2."

Barb
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News