Due to fraudulent activity by Bihari, an interior designer, and her company the defendants created some websites providing the public with their view of Bihari`s conduct. To increase the popularity of these websites, the defendants used Bihari`s name and service mark in the websites Meta tags.
Plaintiffs claimed that the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), the Lanham Act and several other state laws should aply in this matter for a preliminary injunction from the use of the name "Bihari" and its service mark "Bihari Interiors" in their website`s Meta tags.
The court found that there was no trademark infringement, since the plaintiffs were not "likely to cause confusion ... as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the [defendants`] goods, services or commercial activities by another person".
The court held that consumers who got to the website using due to their use of the mark, were not likely to be confused to think that the site belongs to the plaintiffs.
The court also held that the defendants use of the disclaimer: "Keep in mind that this site reflects only the viewpoints and experiences of one Manhattan couple" provided another proof of their good faith.