RE: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Whether the people in this group agree or not, the GNSO Council already
included more than visual similarity in the definition.  It is not our
task to change those recommendations.  That is why I disagreed with the
use of "lowest common denominator" because I suspected that you meant
that.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:31 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity
> 
> 
> 
> On 15 Dec 2009, at 20:31, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I do not disagree with the fact that there can be visual similarity.
> > What I disagree with is that visual similarity is the lowest common 
> > denominator.
> 
> 
> by lowest common denominator i meant the kind of similarity 
> we can all agree would be included in the category 
> 'confusingly similar'.
> 
> what do you believe is the LCD definition of confusingly 
> similar that we can all agree :  'yes, at least that is included'
> 
> a.
> 
> 
>