A couple of weeks ago we told you we were hearing that Verisign filed objections to new gTLD strings that they believe are confusing to .com or .net for which Verisign is the registry including .Cam, .Bom, .Vet, .Company, .Network.
As of today the objections are still not showing up on the on the site of the provider where the objection was filed but TheDomains.com got some detailed information on what Verisign is providing to the International Centere For Dispute Resolution, in support to their objections in this case on the new gTLD .Cam.
Tonight we are publishing Verisign’s Objection which contains the grounds on which they are objection to the .Cam new gTLD. Tomorrow we will publish the affidavits and study the objection refers to.
Here is the edited objection of Verisign (legal references have not largely been included nor the name of the applicant and identifying information, and some background information on Verisign has been omitted)
The Applicant’s use of “.Cam” as the name of a new TLD would create confusion among Internet users.
II. Legal Background on the Meaning of Similarity and Confusion.
A. Similarity
According to the Dispute Resolution Procedures set forth in ICANN’s gTLD Applicant Guidebook, “[s]tring confusion exists where a string so nearly resembles another that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.” gTLD Applicant Guidebook (v. 2012-06-04), Module 3, Section 3.5.1. ”
In this Applicant Guidebook, ‘similar’ means strings so similar that they create a probability of user confusion if more than one of the strings is delegated into the root zone.”
“For a 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.”
The standards articulated in the ICANN Dispute Resolution Procedures reflect and parallel long-established standards governing likelihood of confusion that have developed under U.S. trademark law and trademark law more broadly.
Indeed, the ICANN standards expressly refer to the trademark law concept of “likelihood of confusion.”
Similarly, the ICANN standards require a probability of confusion, which reflects trademark law standards.
The well-established trademark law tests for determining similarity and likelihood of confusion are persuasive in assessing string confusion.
As under trademark law, the Applicant Guidebook makes it clear that the likelihood of confusing similarity must consider more than mere visual similarity, although visual similarity is an important consideration. The Applicant Guidebook expressly states that with regard to objections based on string confusion, “[s]uch category of objection is not limited to visual similarity. Rather, confusion based on any type of similarity (including visual, aural, or similarity of meaning) may be claimed by an objector.”
This is essentially the same test for similarity applied under U.S.…
