Page History

...

As examples, recent string similarity objection decisions have ruled:

· .sport is confusingly similar to .sports

• · .tour is confusingly similar to .tours;
• · .car is not confusingly similar to .cars;
• · .hotel is not confusingly similar to .hotels;
• · .tv is not confusingly similar to .tvs;
• · .pet is not confusingly similar to .pets.;
• · .com is confusingly similar to .cam;
• · .com is not confusingly similar to .cam;
• · .shop is not confusingly similar to the Chinese string for .shop; and
• · .shop is confusingly similar to the Chinese string for .onlineshopping.

The ALAC is particularly concerned with the issue of singular vs plural strings. A central issue is that the "confusingly similar" test relies purely on visual similarity. Based on the initial evaluation (and the recent NGPC decision), adding an "S" makes it a recognizably different string.

The Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.1 describes the string similarity review:

...

At issue are strings pairs such as:

• · hilton.hotel and hilton.hotels;
• · soccer.sport and soccer.sports;
• · poodle.pet and poodle.pets; and
• · taj-mahal.tour and taj-mahal.tours.

...

·         Other registrants would use only one of the TLDs, resulting in quasi-random behavior from a user’s perspective. One cannot expect the typical Internet user to be able to differentiate between two such name spaces, and therefore the ALAC, which is responsible for representing the interests of Internet users in ICANN, believes that we have a genuine case of "confusingly similar.".

The ALAC advises the Board to revisit the issue of new TLD strings which are singular and plural versions of the same word, and ensure that ICANN does not delegate strings that are virtually certain to create confusion among Internet users and therefore result in loss of faith in the DNS.

The ALAC is also concerned with the lack of predictability and consistency in objection decisions. Certainly allowing identical strings to be individually evaluated (based on different arguments and by different panelists) does not appear to have been a wise move. Moreover the clear lack of consistency among the evaluations of different panellists implies that overall, we will put either some TLDs in contention sets where it is not justified, or delegate strings that will cause user confusion.

It is not clear how this can be fixed at this time, but proceeding with no change is either going to unfairly disadvantage some applicants and their target markets or cause certain user confusion.

The ALAC advises the Board to review not only the obvious cases such as .cam/com but the general case and determine a viable way forward which will not create contention sets where it is unwarranted, nor delegate multiple TLDs destined to ensure user confusion and implicit loss of faith in the DNS.

...