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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

And this is where we disagree.  I claim that this is not what the council 
decided and that you are taking a wider interpretation then is warranted.

I agree that this is not the place to hash this out (will probably end up in 
the courts before it is actually decided), and that is why I am asking that we 
avoid something subject to interpretation in the use of examples, especially 
when non controversial examples can be constructed.

a.



On 15 Dec 2009, at 22:04, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.
>> 
>> 
>>