Gross uses the “Bihari Interiors” mark in its descriptive sense only. Moreover, use of the “Bihari Interiors” mark in the metatags of his websites is the only way Gross can get his message to the public. See Bally Total Fitness, 29 F.Supp.2d at 1165 (“Prohibiting [the defendant] from using Bally’s name in the machine readable code would effectively isolate him from all but the most savvy of Internet users.”). A broad rule prohibiting use of “Bihari Interiors” in the meta-tags of websites not sponsored by Bihari would effectively foreclose all discourse and comment about Bihari Interiors, including fair comment. Courts must be particularly cautious of overextending the reach of the Lanham Act and intruding on First Amendment values. Cf. Rogers v. Grimaldi 875 F.2d 994, 998 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); 4 McCarthy, § 27:91 at 27-140 (“Whether
holding that a title holder has  the superior right to possession over one who holds no title holding that under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 a charge alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period holding that a hostile work environment is a form of discrimination that is actionable under the statute holding that the more transformative the new work the more likely the use of the old work is a fair one holding that movie titles using a celebritys name will not be actionable under the lanham act unless the title has no artistic relevance to the underlying work or if the title misleads as to the source or the content of the work