Oracle International Corporation v. jun yin
Claim Number: FA2108001961475
Complainant is Oracle International Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Steven M. Levy of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is jun yin ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <oracle.cam>, registered with Dynadot, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 28, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 28, 2021.
On September 8, 2021, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <oracle.cam> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 September 10, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 30, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@oracle.cam. Also on September 10, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 October 1, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is one of the world's largest developers and marketers of enterprise software products and services, cloud data storage, and computer hardware systems, ranking second only to Microsoft by revenue. Complainant has used ORACLE in connection with its products and services for many years and owns trademark registrations for ORACLE in the United States, the European Union, and other jurisdictions. Complainant contends that its ORACLE mark and associated logo have become famous worldwide as a result of longstanding use and promotion.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <oracle.cam> via a privacy registration service in April 2021. The domain name is being used for a website composed of pay-per-click links to other websites, some of which offer services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is using the ORACLE mark without Complainant's consent. Complainant alleges further that Respondent is "an experienced cybersquatter" and cites Regions Bank v. jun yin, FA 1923914 (Forum Jan. 11, 2021), in which Respondent was found to have engaged in a pattern of bad faith domain name registrations.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <oracle.cam> is identical or confusingly similar to its ORACLE mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <oracle.cam> corresponds to Complainant's registered ORACLE trademark, with the ".cam" top-level domain appended thereto. The addition of a top-level domain is normally irrelevant for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., STADA Arzneimittel AG v. Withheld for Privacy ehf / Namecock Cheapli, D2021-1762 (WIPO Sept. 1, 2021) (finding <stada.cam> identical to STADA); Regions Bank v. jun yin, supra (finding <regions.cam> identical or confusingly similar to REGIONS); Oracle International Corp. v. jesse fastenberg, FA 1912344 (Forum Oct. 30, 2020) (finding <tiktokoracle.com> confusingly similar to ORACLE). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to Complainant's registered mark.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used to display pay-per-click links, including links to competitors of Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Regions Bank v. jun yin, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Oracle International Corp. v. jesse fastenberg, supra (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that the domain name was registered "in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent] ha[s] engaged in a pattern of such conduct." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name corresponding to Complainant's famous mark, and is using the domain name to display pay-per-click links, including links to competitors of Complainant, presumably for commercial gain. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Regions Bank v. jun yin, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Oracle International Corp. v. jesse fastenberg, supra (same). The Panel also notes Respondent's history of similar conduct targeted at other trademarks. See Regions Bank v. jun yin, supra. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <oracle.cam> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: October 8, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page