Roeland forwarded someone's analysis regarding confusing similarity of marks (Roeland, can you please identify who this was?) The one issue that I take with the analysis is that it looks simply to the name itself, and not the use to which the name is put. As the Seventh Circuit explained in Nike v. "Just did It" Enterprises, the court must look to confusion at the *moment of purchase*, not merely "from accross the room." Thus, if a name is not being used for a web page, or if the page clearly indicates that the nameholder is not the corporation that the end-user seeks, or if the word is so generic that the person searching should have no reasonable expectation that the name is exclusively held, then there should be no infringement. The analysis is different for famous marks, thanks to the Anti-Dillution Act of 1996, but use still plays an important role. Harold
