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

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

Please show me anything that says that the definition of confusingly
similar is only visual.  I have pointed out a great deal of detail that
shows otherwise.  Are you suggesting that that detail should be ignored?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:39 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity
> 
> 
> 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.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
>