I agree that it's very arbitrary, but the justification that it could set a precedent by allowing effectively "copycat" application using spelling to mislead us

I agree that it's very arbitrary, but the justification that it could set a precedent by allowing effectively "copycat" application using spelling to mislead users holds some water IMO. It's especially problematic when application names are translated in other scripts and languages, which is the case here. Imagine if a south african made a "facebok" app to share pictures of goats (bok meaning goat in afrikaans), I'm sure it would be rejected on the same grounds. But I agree that the decision is very arbitrary and it can be frustrating if you're on the receiving end, but such is life on Apple's walled garden. Like it or leave it.