<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-idng] Re: same string registered at 2nd level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-idng] Re: same string registered at 2nd level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:28:43 -0500
That makes it (a) a good example of why "meaning" creates avoidable
problems, as the two wouldn't form a contention set if visual
similarity was the test, and (b) not a hypothetical iso3166-1 maybe,
but an actual gTLD IDN example, though when of course is TBD.
Thank you Tim. If all applications are considered independently, than
if both strings resulted in independent contract formation, though
with the same parties, then they would be severable, as they never
really are joined.
That's another reason why it pays to know (interdependency, such as
same applicant) rather than not.
Eric
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|