Oracle International Corporation v. Aditya Roshni / Web Services Pty
Claim Number: FA2207002002802
Complainant is Oracle International Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Aditya Roshni / Web Services Pty (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <oracleacademy.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 1, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 1, 2022.
On July 5, 2022, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <oracleacademy.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On July 5, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 25, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@oracleacademy.com. Also on July 5, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 1, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that, founded in 1977 and headquartered in Redwood City, California, it is one of the world’s largest developers and marketers of enterprise software products and services, cloud data storage, and computer hardware systems – particularly its own brands of database management systems and applications. Beginning in 2011, Complainant became the second-largest software maker by revenue, after Microsoft and it currently has more than 430,000 customers. Complainant operates a computing educational service called ORACLE ACADEMY and uses the domain name <academy.oracle.com>; this service, aimed at teachers and other educators, provides a wide range of teaching resources, including curriculum, classroom learning tools, software, cloud technology, and practice environments. Complainant asserts rights in the ORACLE mark based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies world-wide, including in the United States in 1982.
Complaint alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ORACLE mark because it contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term “academy” and the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com”. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed to use the ORACLE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host a pay-per-click website and redirect users to competing websites. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has a pattern of bad faith registration, having lost prior UDRP cases. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to seek commercial gain, as the resolving website hosts pay-per-click third-party links, including to Complainant’s competitors. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ORACLE mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark ORACLE dating back to 1982 and uses it to market a variety of computer-related products and services.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2004.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving websites displays pay-per-click hyperlinks, some of which offers services that compete with those of Complainant. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s ORACLE mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term “academy” and the gTLD “.com”. The addition of a generic/descriptive term and a gTLD to a mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word “advisors” and the gTLD “.com” did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore the Panel finds that the <oracleacademy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ORACLE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Aditya Roshni / Web Services Pty”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host a pay-per-click website, diverting internet users to websites not associated with Complainant or that offer competing services. Any attempt to divert traffic through a pay-per-click website using a disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website hosts pay-per-click advertising hyperlinks, from which Respondent derives revenue. Using a disputed domain name for commercial gain by hosting pay-per-click hyperlinks may show bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Complainant cites UDRP cases showing that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), where a respondent is involved in a previous UDRP proceeding resulting in transfer of the domain name, the Panel may find that respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use. See Bullock v. Network Operations Ctr., FA 1269834 (Forum Aug. 10, 2009) (“Complainant contends that Respondent has a longstanding history of cybersquatting . . . . The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in a pattern of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <oracleacademy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: August 1, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page