>A federal district court in California has recently opined on a "
><famousmarks>sucks.com" cite.
>Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, C.D. Cal., No. CV 98-1278 DDP
>(MANx), 12/21/98 ). (sorry, the only URL I have is a BNA subscription site,
>but I think the fed courts in CA have their decisions online).
I saw a different press story which stated that in Bally v. Faber, cv
98-1278, the defendant owned compupix.com and had an interior page, so the
url was www.compupix.com/ballysucks/. compupix.com is registered to faber,
ballysucks.com is inactive and registered to another entity which,
superficially at least, appears to have no connection to faber. there is
no decision reprinted on lexis. can anyone lay their hands on the actual
decision?
