That's a fairly good argument to ignore any name collision; "oh, it only affects people that are not me".
Given that the products are quite similar - both are virtual file systems after all - confusion is actually quite likely. If you're the kind of person who has reasons to speak about virtual filesystems at all (which, honestly, most people don't) you should probably know about both.
Had this been back in the day one would guess it was deliberate... but hey, everybody tells me Microsoft are supposed to be good guys these days, so I guess Hanlon's Razor applies.
I see no problem in it in that the two domains are very, very unlikely to be confused in context. Pretty much the only time confusion is likely to be sown is if there is a headlines akin to the one submitted here.
AFAICT, there's essentially no overlap of features beyond the fact that they're virtual file systems. The feature sets are completely different, and there's no intersection where if you read more than a few words into whatever you're looking at you'll be left scratching your head thinking "Oh jeez, which one is it this time?"
Will it still be the case next? I'm not saying it is a good choice, but maybe they consider they will gain enough traction to surpass it in the results.
If that's the idea, that would make the choice of name directly malicious, rather than just an unfortunate oversight.
I don't see how it would make qarioz's original point any less valid at all.
