Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural

[Andy Abrams <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Update: the first singular-plural decisions have come in.  Both
singular-plural decisions have gone *against *a finding of string confusion
(our car/cars objection against Donuts, and a Hotel Top-Level-Domain
S.a.r.l. v. Booking.com B.V. for hotel/hotels).  In the car/cars decision,
the Panel stated: "It is true that
the ICANN visual similarity standards appear quite narrow, but it is not
the role [of] this Panel to substitute for ICANN’s expert technical
findings."  In the hotel/hotels decision, the Panel similarly stated: "I
find persuasive the degrees of similarity or dissimilarity between the
strings by use of the String Similarity Assessment Tool, that ICANN did not
put the applications for .HOTEL and .HOTELS in the same contention set."
 In other words, the early results suggest that the ICDR may give complete
deference to ICANN's earlier refusal to essentially find any instances of
string confusion, no matter how close the strings.

Andy


On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Steve DelBianco
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>   Here's what we just told the Board at the Public Forum, on behalf of
> the BC
>
>     ICANN’s String Similarity Panel was to place into contention sets any
> strings that create a possibility of user confusion.****
>
> ** **
>
> But in late February ICANN published contention sets that did NOT include
> 24 pairs of singular-plural forms of the same string (English and Spanish)
>     Sport(s) Loan(s)    Web(s)    Game(s)  Hotel(es)****
>
> ** **
>
> Risks of allowing both singular and plural TLDs for the same word are *well
> understood*.****
>
> -confusion****
>
> -precedent for the *next* round****
>
> -ICANN looking pretty ridiculous****
>
> ** **
>
> What’s *not understood* is how it happened and what we can do about it.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> First response is to ask if the panelist follow GNSO Policy on confusingly
> similar.****
>
> ** **
>
> Second response is “Chong”  ( Chinese for “Do-over” )****
>
> -Do-over on just these 24 pairs ****
>
> - WIPO Mediation Rules, Article 1 says, “Words used in the singular
> include the plural and vice versa, as the context may require.”****
>
> ** **
>
> Guess we could correct the Guidebook (plurals *are* confusingly similar)**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> String Confusion Objections on 7 of these pairs are in the hands of the
> ICDR rightnow.  If ICSR does the right thing and finds these pairs *should
> * be contention sets, The Board can apply this rule to ALL 24 pairs ****
>
> ** **
>
> Failing that, there’s Formal Reconsideration.
>
> ** **
>
> We all worry about threat from inter-governmental groups just waiting for
> ICANN to stumble.****
>
> ** **
>
> We have enough vulnerability to stumble with so many unknowns in the new
> gTLD launch.****
>
> ** **
>
> No need to add to our vulnerability with this self-inflicted wound****
>



-- 
Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
*Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
(650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>