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

[stephvg@xxxxxxxxx]

Perhaps getting the word out might help. Here's hoping, although I have just 
kept to the facts and not added any opinions of my own… 
http://www.stephanevangelder.com/archives/450-Panels-rule-no-confusion-exists-between-singular-and-plural-strings.html

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: 
www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

Le 14 août 2013 à 11:12, "Marie Pattullo" <marie.pattullo@xxxxxx> a écrit :

> This is beyond depressing. Is there anything we can actually do, though?
> Marie
>  
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> J. Scott Evans
> Sent: mercredi 14 août 2013 6:39
> To: abrams@xxxxxxxxxx; mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural
>  
> I think ICANN should stay out of trademark law.
> 
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
>  
> From: Andy Abrams <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
> To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
> Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>; Steve Delbianco 
> <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; 
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural 
> Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2013 3:49:39 AM
>  
> Hi Mike,
>  
> Attached are copies of the two decisions.  We'll see if the other ICDR cases 
> follow suit, but in these two cases, it seems that a decision was made up 
> front to not find string confusion unless the strings were identical (in 
> which case there is no need to bring an objection) or the strings were 
> symbolic or visual equivalents (e.g., com v. c0m, which does not exist at the 
> top level as far as I know, or unicorn v. unicom, which again, was already 
> placed by ICANN into a contention set).  Then it appears that the somewhat 
> tortured reasoning was applied retroactively.  If this is the case, then it 
> will literally be impossible to win a string confusion case, and I agree that 
> the entire process is rendered completely superfluous/useless.  
>  
> Andy
>  
>  
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:07 PM, <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That paraphrasing of the reasoning makes it seem like the experts are 
> entirely shirking their duty as independent neutrals, and are making the 
> String Similarity Objection completely superfluous/useless.
>  
> Andy can you send copies of the decisions please?  Or are they posted 
> somewhere?
>  
> Thanks,
> Mike
>  
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>  
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> J. Scott Evans
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:22 PM
> To: abrams@xxxxxxxxxx; sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural
>  
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
>  
> From: Andy Abrams <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
> To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
> Cc: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; 
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural 
> Sent: Tue, Aug 13, 2013 11:08:58 PM
>  
> 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
>  
> 
> 
>  
> -- 
> Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
> Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
> (650) 669-8752