International Centre for Dispute Resolution
New gTLD String Confusion Panel_____________________________________________________________________________
Re: 50 504 00273 13
COMMERCIAL CONNECT, LLC, OBJECTOR
andDOT‐SALE, LLC, APPLICANT
String: <.SALE >______________________________________________________________________________
EXPERT DETERMINATIONThe Parties:
The Objector is Commercial Connect, LLC and is represented by Jeffrey S. Smith, 1418 South 3rdStreet, Louisville, KY 40208 USA.
The Applicant is Dot‐Sale, LLC and is represented by Edward A. White, 21700 Oxnard Street,
Suite 400, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 USA, and by Daniel Frohling, Loeb & Loeb LLP, 321 North
Clark Street, Suite 2300, Chicago, IL 60654 USA and Melanie Howard, Loeb & Loeb LLP, 10100
Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200, Los Angeles, CA 90067 USA.
The New gTLD String Objected To:
The new gTLD string applied for and objected to is: .sale
Prevailing Party:
The Applicant has prevailed and the Objection is dismissed.
The New gTLD String Confusion Process:
Module 3 of the ICANN gTLD Applicant Guidebook contains Objection Procedures and the NewgTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure (“the Procedure”).
Article 1(b) of the Procedure states that “The new gTLD program includes a dispute resolution
procedure, pursuant to which disputes between a person or entity who applies for a new gTLD

1

and a person or entity who objects to that gTLD are resolved in accordance with this New gTLD
Dispute Resolution Procedure.
As expressed in the Guidebook, and the Procedure, there are four (4) grounds to object to theregistration of new gTLDs. One of these grounds expressed String Confusion, as described inDRP Article 2(e)(i): “(i) ‘String Confusion Objection’ refers to the objection that the string
comprising the potential gTLD is confusingly similar to an existing top‐level domain or
another string applied for in the same round of applications.”
Article 3(a) states that “String Confusion Objections shall be administered by the International
Centre for Dispute Resolution”.
Procedural History of this Case:By letter dated March 18, 2013, the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”)
acknowledged receipt of the Objection. ICDR subsequently found certain administrative
deficiencies in the Objection and gave Objector an opportunity to correct these. By letter
dated April 11, 2013, ICDR found the earlier deficiencies rectified, and registered the Objection
for processing. By letter dated April 17, 2013, ICDR directed Applicant to file its Response tothe Objection. Applicant timely filed its Response to the Objection on or about May 16, 2013.
By letter dated May 24, 2013, ICDR acknowledged timely receipt of the Response to theObjection and determined that the Response complied with Article 11 of the New gTDL DisputeResolution Procedure and the applicable Dispute Resolution Service Provider (“DRSP”) Rules. By
letter dated June 18, 2013, ICDR appointed the undersigned to serve as the neutral expert(“Expert”) in this matter.
Basis for Objector’s Standing to Object based on String Confusion:
Objector is a gTLD applicant for: .shop. Objector has standing to make its Objection pursuant
to Module 3 of the ICANN gTLD Applicant Guidebook on the grounds of String Confusion.
Factual Background:
Applicant has applied for the potential .sale gTLD. Objector has applied for the potential .shopgTLD.
The Parties’ Contentions:Objector: Objector contends that the gTLD (“.sale”) filed by Applicant so nearly
resembles the “.shop” gTLD that it is probable that confusion will arise in the mind of theaverage, reasonable internet user because the “.sale” gTLD application is similar either visually,
aurally, or has a similar meaning.
Applicant: Applicant contends that the Objection has failed to demonstrate the highlevel of similarity required by applicable ICANN guidance to show probable confusion and toprevail on the Objection. Applicant contends that, in fact, the Objection fails to demonstrate2

any similarity between the strings at issue here and, indeed, does not even name the specificstring to which the Objection is made or offer any plausible demonstration of why theparticular strings in dispute are allegedly likely to deceive or cause confusion. Applicant also
contends that “.sale” is not likely to be confused with “.shop” because both terms are generic,and neither is a brand, a distinctive term or even a merely descriptive term. Applicant also
contends that the two strings in dispute are not visually, phonetically or aurally similar, thatthey do not have identical meanings and that they are unlikely to be confused by an averageinternet user. Finally, Applicant contends that the Objection was submitted for an improper
purpose – constraining the choices and options available to internet users – rather than as alegitimate attempt to prevent confusion among such users.
Discussion and Findings:
Based on the record presented, I make the following findings concerning this dispute:Objector has failed to demonstrate it is probable that Applicant’s proposed gTLD “.sale” willcause a likelihood of confusion to arise in the mind of the average, reasonable internet user as
specified in the ICANN gTLD Applicant Guidebook, Module 3, Section 3.5.1. Objector also
failed to demonstrate either that internet users will be unable to distinguish between thegTLD’s “.shop” and “.sale” when using the internet, or that they will be confused into believingthat these two gTLD’s are either the same or interchangeable.
More specifically, the Objection failed to demonstrate that the “.shop” and “.sale” gTLD’s arevisually similar, phonetically or aurally similar, or that they have the same meanings. Rather,
Applicant demonstrated persuasively that the two terms are both visually and phoneticallydissimilar. Objector substantially undercut its own contention that the two gTLD’s have thesame meanings by failing to even identify or discuss the “.sale” TLD in its presentation of theObjection. In addition, Objector listed 19 words that allegedly have a similar meaning to .shop,
but none of the words listed included “.sale” or any similar variants of that term. As presented,
the Objection failed to demonstrate that the two gTLD’s convey confusingly similar meanings orthat reasonable internet users are likely to be confused by them.
For these reasons, I find that Objector failed to satisfy the standard required by applicable
ICANN guidance to establish a probability of string confusion.
Determination:
Therefore, the Applicant has prevailed and the Objection is dismissed.

3DATED this 15th day of August, 2013______________________________
Thomas J. Brewer
Sole Expert Panelist4