Micros Systems, Inc. / Oracle International Corporation v. Jaron Hunter
Claim Number: FA2007001904194
Complainant is Micros Systems, Inc. / Oracle International Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Madelon Lapidus of Holland & Hart LLP, United States. Respondent is Jaron Hunter (“Respondent”), United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <oraclemicros.com>, registered with 1&1 IONOS SE.
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.
Jeffrey J. Neuman as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 14, 2020; the Forum received payment on July 14, 2020.
On July 20, 2020, 1&1 IONOS SE confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <oraclemicros.com> domain name is registered with 1&1 IONOS SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1&1 IONOS SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1&1 IONOS SE 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 21, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 10, 2020 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Also on July 21, 2020, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 10, 2020.
On August 13, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Jeffrey J. Neuman 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
The two Complainants in this matter, Micros Systems, Inc. (“Micros”) and Oracle International Corporation (“Oracle”) belong to the same corporate family with the former being a wholly owned subsidiary of the latter.
It is well established that the FORUM’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) allows multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. For the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. V. Malik, FA 666119, the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names.
Where one of the complainants is a wholly owned subsidiary of the other, a sufficient link between complainants, namely, their corporate affiliation, certainly exists. See for example Guess? IP Holder L.P and Guess?, Inc. v. Julio Villafuerte, FA 1906001847079 (Forum June 26, 2019); Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico FA 1905001842744 (Forum June 8, 2019); and Catalent Pharma Solutions, Inc. and R. P. Scherer Technologies, Inc. v. Brandon Souto, FA 1811001815217 (Forum December 18, 2018).
The Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, to enable them to be treated as a single entity in this proceeding. Thus, the two Complainants in this matter will be treated as a single party and collectively referred to as “Complainant.”
Complainant, Micros, is a leading worldwide designer, manufacturer and supplier of enterprise-wide applications, services and hardware, including comprehensive point of sale (“POS”) systems for the hospitality and retail industries, all offered under the MICROS mark. On June 23, 2014, Oracle, who is one of the largest developers and marketers of computer hardware systems, enterprise software products, database management systems, and a broad range of other goods and services, announced its acquisition of Micros. See Compl. Ex. 4. Complainant has rights in the MICROS and ORACLE marks due to their registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. MICROS – Reg. No. 2,946,015 registered May 3, 2005) (e.g. ORACLE – Reg. No. 1,200,239 registered July 6, 1982). See Compl. Ex. 3.
Respondent’s <oraclemicros.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ MICROS and ORACLE marks combined. Respondent incorporates the marks in their entireties and adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <oraclemicros.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the marks in any way. Respondent also fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent offers goods and services that directly compete against Complainant’s business.
Respondent registered the <oraclemicros.com> domain name in bad faith as it was registered after the announced acquisition of MICROS by ORACLE, and had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MICROS and ORACLE marks due to the long standing use and fame of the marks. With actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights, the Respondent knowingly renewed that domain name (most recently in 2018) without Complainant’s permission or consent, and it uses the domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s competing website located at https://www.vendhq.com/pos-system. This website offers products and services that compete with Complainant’s business.
Complainant’s MICROS and ORACLE marks are generic and domain name registrars do not grant preemptive rights to domain name to trademark holders. Complainant does not own a trademark for the term “oralclemicros.com” and there are other examples of domain names incorporating the terms on the marketplace.
Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the <oraclemicros.com> domain name as the marks are generic can be found in the dictionary, and are available on a first-come, first-served basis from domain name registrars. In addition, Respondent does not attempt to create consumer confusion with Complainant’s marks, and does not compete with Complainant. Respondent is also not affiliated with VendHQ, the owner of the website to which the <oraclemicros.com> domain name redirects. Respondent intends to use the domain name in the future for a personal blog to express Respondent's freedom of speech and press.
Respondent has not used the <oraclemicros.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent does not directly offer goods or services that Respondent benefits from. Respondent has used the disputed domain name for 6 years and has not made a profit. Respondent has made no attempt to sell the disputed domain name.
This complaint is frivolous and Complainant engages in reverse domain name highjacking. Respondent has owned the domain name for 6 years without issue and the doctrine of laches applies.
This proceeding violates Respondent's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of speech and the press, and rights to privacy.
1. The disputed domain name <oraclemicros.com> is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark to which the Complainant has rights.
a. Complainant owns several trademarks for MICROS in connection with Computer software, electronic cash registers and point-of-sale terminals and has been using those marks since 1977. Complainant also owns numerous trademarks for ORACLE in connection with a variety of goods and services, including computer hardware, software, database management systems, and a broad range of other goods and services. Complainant’s use of the ORACLE trademark began at least as early as 1979.
b. The domain name <oraclemicros.com> incorporates both the MICROS and ORACLE trademarks in their entirety and only adds the ".com" gTLD. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s marks per Policy para. 4(a)(i).
2. The Respondent has not demonstrated any recognized legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name.
3. The disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
a. The disputed domain name was registered on June 25, 2014, just several days after the announced acquisition of Micros Systems Inc by Oracle.
b. Although the Respondent alleges that it is not affiliated with the owner of the website to which the disputed domain name redirects, it admitted that it voluntarily chose to redirect the disputed domain name to a website that allegedly competes with Complainant’s goods and/or services.
c. Despite alleging that it intends to use the disputed domain name in the future in a non-infringing manner, the Respondent has provided no evidence of demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in such a manner.
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.
Several previous panels have found that Complainant does in fact have rights in both the MICROS and ORACLE marks based on their trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See Micros Systems, Inc. v. Domain Admin / China Capital Investment Limited, FA 1703001722961 (Forum April 26, 2017), Micros Systems, Inc. v. SFR Funding, FA 1602001659618 (Forum March 11, 2016), Oracle International Corporation v. John Carter, FA 2003001889142 (Forum April 23, 2020); and Oracle Corporation v. Internet Nexus Inc, FA 0012000096336 (Forum February 5, 2001).
This Panel too finds that Complainant has rights in the MICROS and ORACLE marks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with a copy of its USPTO registrations for the MICROS and ORACLE marks (e.g. MICROS – Reg. No. 2,946,015 registered May 3, 2005) (e.g. ORACLE – Reg. No. 1,200,239 registered July 6, 1982). See Compl. Ex. 3.
Respondent’s <oraclemicros.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICROS and ORACLE marks. Registration of a domain name that contains a mark in its entirety and adds a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See loanDepot.com, LLC v. sm goo, FA 1786848 (Forum June 12, 2018) (“we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <mellosolar.com> domain name is substantively identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s MELLO SOLAR mark.”). Here, Complainant argues that Respondent incorporates the marks in their entireties and adds the “.com” gTLD.
While Respondent contends that the <oraclemicros.com> domain name is comprised of common and generic terms and as such cannot be found to be identical/confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, this argument is not a defense against this element of the Complainant’s prima facie case under ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Although this can be considered in a later analysis of whether the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith, this element of the Policy considers only whether Complainant has rights in the marks and whether the disputed domain name isidentical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Precious Puppies of Florida, Inc. v. kc, FA 1028247 (Forum Aug. 10, 2007) (examining Respondent’s generic terms arguments only under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and not under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Vitello v. Castello, FA 159460 (Forum July 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s disputed domain name was identical to complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), but later determining the issue of whether the disputed domain name was comprised of generic terms under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii)).
In addition to demonstrating that that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights, the Complainant must make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Once that prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
A Complainant can make its prima facie case by alleging that it has no relationship with respondent and did not authorize respondent to use its trademark. Once those facts are established, the Respondent has the burden to establish that it is either (i) making a bona fide offering of goods or services, (ii) commonly known by the domain name, or (iii) making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. See Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) – (iii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interest in the <oraclemicros.com> domain name as Respondent has not been given license or consent to use the MICROS and ORACLE marks or register domain names using Complainant’s mark. Complainant further asserts that Respondent is not an authorized vendor, supplier, distributor, or customer relations agent for Complainant’s goods or services. Complainant also asserts that the WHOIS record provides no information suggesting that the Respondent (or the Respondent’s business) is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Respondent admits that it “has made no claims in being affiliated with the complainant, being an authorized vendor, supplier, distributor, or customer relations agent of the complainant.” Resp. at Section 2.c. Lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
Respondent also does not dispute that it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. In addition, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the Registrant as “Jaron Hunter” and does not include an “Organization Name.” There is also no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Having established these elements, the burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights and/or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. To do this, Respondent argues that it has legitimate rights and/or interests in the disputed domain name because (i) he was the first to register the domain name in 2014, (ii) he has a legitimate interest of future use in the domain name, and that (iii) he has “future use in the domain name by practicing his freedom of speech and freedom of press, both rights protected by the United States Constitution."
These arguments, however, do not establish rights to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under the Policy. To establish rights to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under the policy, a Respondent must show that its current use of the domain name is in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. This can be established through a demonstration of its use of the domain OR “demonstrable preparations to use” the domain name. Respondent established neither of these.
It is undisputed that Respondent redirects traffic from the disputed domain directly to https://www.vendhq.com/pos-system. The Complainant alleges that this is the Respondent’s website and that it offers competitive goods and services to Complainant. Complainant has provided screenshots of Respondent’s resolving webpage that shows services and products related to Complainant’s business, specifically those around a retail POS system. See Compl. Ex. 6
Respondent does not dispute the fact that the disputed domain name redirects to a site that can be viewed as competitive to the Complainant’s point-of-sale business. Rather, it argues that Respondent is not affiliated with the owner of the website to which he has voluntarily chosen to redirect the disputed domain name, nor does it receive any renumeration for redirecting the disputed domain name to that site.
The redirection of a disputed domain name to a site that offers competitive goods or services to Complainant does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services nor does it show a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The fact that the website to which traffic is redirected is not owned or controlled by Respondent is not relevant to the determination of whether a Respondent has rights or legitimate interests to the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii).
Finally, Respondent’s argument that has an intent to use the site in the future in a non-infringing manner does not establish rights or legitimate interests to the domain name unless the Respondent can show demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in that manner. Demonstrable preparations can consist of business plans or other evidence reasonably related to Respondent’s alleged bona fide use. However, vague and unsupported assertions of an intent to use a domain name in a manner to “display his constitutional rights of freedom of speech and press without infringing on the complainants trademark rights.” Is not proof of a legitimate business plan. See Household International, Inc. v. Cyntom Enterprises, FA 0010000095784 (Forum November 7, 2000) (finding that "plans to sell household goods, supplies and appliances over the Internet" was not proof of a legitimate business plan).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
a) Registration in Bad Faith
Respondent asserts that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith because the words “oracle” and “micros” are generic terms and can be found in the English dictionary. It also argues that because domain names can be purchased from multiple registrars without permission required from complainants.
Complainant argues that the marks ORACLE and MICROS are famous well-known marks which have been in substantial use since well before 2014 when the domain name was registered. They assert that due to the fame of the two marks, it should be assumed that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s marks when registering the domain name. In addition, the domain name was registered on June 25, 2014, just two days after Oracle publicly announced the acquisition of MICROS. See Compl. Ex. 4.
The Panel agrees with Complainant that the domain name was registered (and renewed) in bad faith for the following reasons. First, even assuming arguendo that both terms “oracle” and “micros” can be found in the dictionary[i], it is difficult to accept that the combination of these two words in the same domain name was coincidental. This is especially the case when the registration of the disputed domain name was only two (2) days following the announcement of the acquisition of Micros Systems, Inc. by Oracle. The temporal proximity of public announcements and registration of domain names has long been recognized as establishing opportunistic bad faith. See 3M Co. v. Jeong, FA 505494 (Forum August 11, 2005)(“Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name the same day that Complainant issued the press release regarding the acquisition constitutes opportunistic bad faith”)’
The Panel also concludes that given the fame of both the MICROS and ORACLE marks, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the marks prior to registering the disputed domain name. See Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Michael Bach, FA1426668 (Forum March 2, 2012) (“Although Complainant has not submitted evidence indicating actual knowledge by Respondent of its rights in the trademark, the Panel finds that, due to the fame of Complainant’s [VICTORIA’S SECRET] mark, Respondent had actual notice at the time of the domain name registration and therefore registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); Bloomberg L.P. v. Xuebao Wang, FA0012000096305 (Forum Feb. 12. 2001) (citing Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) (finding the fact “that the Respondent chose to register a well-known mark to which he has no connections or rights indicates that he was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue”)).
This actual knowledge combined with the redirection of Internet traffic to a site offering competitive services to Complainant also demonstrates registration bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum January 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”).
The Panel also agrees with Complainant that the fact that Respondent continued to renew the disputed domain name having actual knowledge of the MICROS and ORACLE Marks, further evidence of bad faith. See Big 5 Corp. v. Eye/Aim. Com / Roy Fang, FA 1513704 (Forum Oct. 11, 2013) (“[A] domain name not only must be registered as per the requirements of Paragraph 2 of the Policy, but also its renewals must comply with the same standards. Thus, the requirements of the Policy can be studied not only regarding a domain name registration but also when it is renewed.”); Broadnet Teleservices, LLC v. SUN, MICHAEL, FA1506001625931 (Forum July 23, 2015) (“[T]he Panel finds Respondent’s actual knowledge when renewing the disputed domain name as indicative of its bad faith intent to deprive the owner of a confusingly similar mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) in light of its exposure with Complainant.”).
b) Use in Bad Faith
The Panel further concludes that Respondent has, and is continuing to, use the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the <oraclemicros.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent offers products and services that compete with Complainant’s business. Use of a disputed domain name to offer services that compete with a complainant’s business may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to reference the complainant’s products and offer competitive and/or counterfeit products).
As stated above, although Respondent argues that he neither owns, controls nor is affiliated with the site to which the disputed domain is redirected, the Respondent admits that he has voluntarily and affirmatively forwarded traffic to the website to which Complainant alleges competes with Complainant. He also argues that because he does not financially benefit from the redirection, he is not using the domain name in bad faith. These arguments, however, miss the mark. The fact that Respondent admits that it could have used the site to point to anywhere, yet deliberately chose to redirect the disputed domain name to a website that offers competing services to Complainant not only shows that Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights, but also shows bad faith. Whether the Respondent was affiliated with the website to which traffic was directed or whether he actually commercially benefitted from the redirection is irrelevant. See, e.g., Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHU YiKaiQi, FA 1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015)(“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Respondent argues that it has owned the disputes domain name for six years without any concerns from the registrar, Complainant, ICANN, or any others and therefore the doctrine of laches should apply. The Panel, however, finds that the doctrine of laches does not apply as a defense. See Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem v. Alberta Hot Rods, D2002-0616 (WIPO Oct. 7, 2002) (“The remedy available in an Administrative Proceeding under the Policy is not equitable. Accordingly, the defence of laches has no application.”); see also Drown Corp. v. Premier Wine & Spirits, FA 616805 (Forum Feb. 13, 2006) (finding that the laches defense was inappropriate under the Policy and that the time frame within which the complainant brought the proceeding was of no consequential value); see also Disney Enters. Inc. v. Meyers, FA 697818 (Forum June 26, 2006) (“Respondent’s efforts at arguing related equitable defenses such as estoppel and acquiescence are equally misplaced as these legal arguments are not contemplated by the Policy. Moreover, recognition of these arguments in accordance with Respondent’s desires requires the Panel to make a legal determination regarding the continuing validity of Complainant’s DISNEY mark. Such action is beyond the scope of the UDRP proceeding and if Respondent desires such an outcome it should avail itself of the proper judicial proceedings by which such a result might be accomplished.”).
Reverse Domain Name Highjacking
The Panel has concluded that the Complainant has satisfied all of the elements of Policy ¶ 4(a), and as such, Complainant cannot be found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking. See World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t, Inc. v. Ringside Collectibles, D2000-1306 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (“Because Complainant has satisfied [all of] the elements of the Policy, Respondent’s allegation of reverse domain name hijacking must fail”); see also Gallup, Inc. v. PC+s.p.r.l., FA 190461 (Forum Dec. 2, 2003) (finding no reverse domain name hijacking where complainant prevailed on the “identical/confusingly similar” prong of the Policy).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <oraclemicros.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Panelist
Dated: August 18, 2020
[i] The Panel has been unable to find the word “micros” in any English dictionary at its disposal.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page