I would expect a product named Facemail to be something created by Facebook.
So you're in the 36.2%. Was there another point you were trying to make? (fwiw, I'd be in the 63.8% of that poll).
When we start making these decisions more heavily on the subjectivity of users more than objectivity (e.g. the colors would be completely different, and if they aren't then a trademark infringement could be filed at that time), then we're just giving the free market to large corporations.
The more popular a brand is, the more likely more people are to associate related names/colors/symbols to that brand. Trademark law simply does not exist for cases like this. It exists to prevent genuine outright infringement.
The link steps through the decisions, and gives case law for the reason. Which step do you disagree with?
EDIT: The link says clearly that a well known mark gets more protection just because it is well known.
But OP wasn't using Facebook, he wasn't using Facebok, he wasn't using Facbook, he wasn't pretending to be Facebook, we wasn't competing with facebook, he wasn't using the colors, the image, or anything related to the brand.
No, he was punished (i.e. the government used force against him to hider his free market ability) for using a name that started with Face. That's simply not a threshold that we, as a society, should accept as protected--no matter the popularity of the brand, no matter the laws a group of 435 people influenced heavily by corporations have managed to actually pass.
Besides that, the ruling is by it's very nature a subjective decision. I disagree with their subjective decision.
Might be worth looking over the history between Apple Corps and Apple Computer [1]. Who should have had the trademark there?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
36% were confused by FACEMAIL, and 0% were confused by THINKMAIL.
29% is considered enough to be confusing.
At some point, and this is why the Star Trek / Star Wars example matters, consumers realize that the prefix is generic within the scope of a given market. Telecommunications and faces overlap a lot these days.
It's just something people do (or at least I do). I think it's maddness to prevent the use of names starting with "Face" because of this confusion. I thought that iPlayer was apple related like iTunes for a long time. It's confusing yes but I don't feel you should be able to prevent someone using a similar sounding name.