In a comment posted on ICANN site today Donuts, Inc. which has applied for the new gTLD .City, weighted in on whether the new gTLD’s of .Citi and .City are similarly confusing
In Donuts opinion that they are not.
Writing for Donuts, Inc. was Richard Tindal said:
“Donuts agrees with Citigroup’s comment that .CITY and .CITI are visually dissimilar. The Citigroup comment correctly states that ICANN has delegated numerous TLDs with common characters and endings in “I” and “Y,” such as .BI and .BY, .CI and .CY, and .SI and .SY without resulting user confusion. Additional examples of non-identical strings include generic and country code TLDs, such as .BZ and .BIZ or .CO and .COM. At the second level, it can be noted that city.com and citi.com have existed side-by-side for many years without noticeable consumer confusion.
The standard applied by the Similarity Panel holds that the average Internet user is likely to be visually confused. With the above examples peacefully coexisting in the DNS, it’s difficult to understand how .CITY and .CITI might be interpreted as meeting that standard. Citigroup argues persuasively that similarity can (and often does) depend on the number of characters in strings (the shorter the strings, the less likely to create confusion). Donuts does not seek or expect contention between its own application for .CITY and Citigroup’s application for .CITI and, accordingly, affirms Citigroup’s comment.”
BrianWick says
At best Citi is a play (or exploitation) on City – not the other way around.
Will Citi be making a claim for Dodge City or Central City, for example ?
I guess what I am saying is CITI got themselves into this mess
Domo Sapiens says
Good thing “phonetics” don’t matter…
dot citi
and
dot city
LM says
I wonder if their insistence will be as enthusiastic that i and y are so different and are in no way confusingly similar when they come to UDRP other potential typo domains.
Cartoonz says
Did anyone really expect them to say anything other than this?
Grim says
Most people will likely type in CITY if they hear either one. So it appears that CITI will be at a disadvantage, and will really have to market the extension if they want people to understand the difference.
In the end, one has to question if it will be worth it, or if they should have just been satisfied with their .COM presence, avoiding the marketing issues that are sure to come with CITI.
unknowndomainer says
They will both argue this until someone applies for
.sity
.citis
.cities
Then they will argue it’s confusing – even though there has been no confusion with http://www.sity.com
Cmm Movie says
There is a court decision that citybank.org is confusingly similar to the bran “Citibank”. So basically the correct spelling was considered a typo of incorrect spelling.
Volker Greimann says
From the 2009 UDRP decision Citigroup Inc. v. Domain Deluxe c/o Domain Administrator, where CitiGroup claims:
“Respondent’s citywarrants.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIWARRANTS mark.”
Conclusion of the panelist: The variant of the name was a “mistyped variation” of and “substantively identical” to the Citigroup trademark.
So .citi and .city are not confusingly similar, or only when it suits Citigroup.
So have fun registering warrants.city, checking.city or even (gasp) bank.city…