At 04:58 PM 2/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>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?
>
http://www.compupix.com/ballysucks/decision.htm
See also:
http://www.compupix.com/ballysucks/
which is up and running.
Bill Lovell
