to the PLANNED PARENTHOOD HOME PAGE”). Moreover, the Gross websites include a disclaimer: “Keep in mind that this site reflects only the view points and experiences of one Manhattan couple.... ” See Amended Complaint ¶ 92. Although a disclaimer cannot insulate Gross from liability, it indicates good faith use of the service marks and weighs in Gross’s favor. See Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. General Signal Corp., 724 F.2d 1044, 1053 (2d Cir.1983) (“Disclaimers are a favored way of alleviating consumer confusion as to source or sponsorship”); Welles, 7 F.Supp.2d at 1104. Even if the Gross websites are mean-spirited and vindictive, bad faith cannot be imputed as well to Gross’s use of the “Bihari Interiors” mark in the metatags. See Nihon Keizai Shim-bun, 166 F.3d at 74 (<HOLDING>). B. The Common Law Libel Claim Plaintiffs also
holding insurer not liable for bad faith when it denied insureds claim based on a good faith dispute regarding the interpretation of a rule holding the bad faith rationale inapplicable given that the defendants acted in good faith in appealing the case and in raising defenses to the plaintiffs claims holding that bad faith includes lack of good faith in investigating the facts of a complaint holding that use of plaintiffs mark is in good faith even though other aspects of defendants behavior may have evidenced bad faith holding that a bad faith claim is a tort