Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

And that is the crux of one of our strong  differences of opinion.  

I believe that it was never the intent of the GNSO Council to allow 'meaning' 
within the category of 'confusingly similar'.  

In fact, I believe the GNSO decision was to restrict it to visual confusion and 
I believe the DAG is as well:

Standard for String Confusion – String confusion exists where
a string so nearly resembles another visually that it is likely to
deceive or cause confusion. For the likelihood of confusion
to exist, it must be probable, not merely possible that
confusion will arise in the mind of the average, reasonable
Internet user. Mere association, in the sense that the string
brings another string to mind, is insufficient to find a
likelihood of confusion.

a.

On 16 Apr 2010, at 10:35, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> But 'confusing similarity' is not restricted to only visual confusion in
> the GNSO recommendations.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 9:04 AM
>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 16 Apr 2010, at 08:47, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
>> 
>>> It seems unnecessary and against the original intention.
>> 
>> and as long as 'confusing similarity'  means 'likely to cause 
>> visual confusion,' it won't happen and there will be no 
>> problem as was intended by the council.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>