One of the more interesting objections filed at the International Centre for Dispute resolution (ICDR) based on String Confusion was Verisign’s objection to the new gTLD .Cam being too confusing to .Com.
Today a panel has ruled that .Cam is not confusing to .Com, finding “the visual similarity of the two strings does not allow a conclusion that confusion would result”.
“The test is not to decide whether the proposed domain name bears similarities to existing domain name but rather to determine whether or not an average Internet user would be confused by those similarities.”
“I agree that a consumer would quickly realize that a .com website is likely associated with photography or cameras use and is different than a .com website.
“Neither am I satisfied that Verisign will suffer any significant economic harm if the .cam string application is allowed. The .com name is a powerful market force that is unlikely to be displaced in any measurable way by niche websites that adopt the .cam extension for website devoted to cameras photography or film making.”
“I have considered the similarities between the proposed .com string and the existing .com string on all the levels raised by Verisign. while there is visual similarity and aural similarity and no dictionary distinction in meaning there is not, on the whole, in the context of modern internet usage, any rational basis up which to conclude that an average reasonable internet user would probably be confused in the distinguishing between the two.”
“I find that there is no probability of confusion in the mind of the average, reasonable Internet user.”
This particular objection was filed to the application of AC Webconnecting Holding, B.V.
Here is the decision: