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

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

The report speaks for itself Avri as does the DAG in its latest version.
I understand that you do not like that; that is why you submitted a
minority statement.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 4:18 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> 
> 
> 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.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
>