The Complainant is Oracle International Corporation of Redwood Shores, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Steven M. Levy, Esq., United States.
The Respondent is Panshuailou 1, Simon Pan of Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain name and (the “Domain Names”) are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 21, 2018. On March 21, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On March 22, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 3, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 23, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 24, 2018.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant was founded in 1977 and it is one of the world’s largest developers and marketers of enterprise software products and services and computer hardware systems. It has currently more than 430,000 customers. The Complainant offers cloudbased computing environment known as the ORACLE CLOUD. This incorporates SaaS applications (Software as a Service), DaaS (Data as a Service) and IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) applications that enable customers to run their application workloads in the ORACLE CLOUD. The Complainant’s products and services are sold throughout the world under the ORACLE and ORACLE CLOUD trademarks. The Complainant promotes its ORACLE products and services through a variety of advertising and promotional mediums.
The Complainant owns trademark registrations around the world, including in the United States and the European Union, see for example ORACLE CLOUD, United States registration number 5195735, registered on May 2, 2017, and ORACLE, registration number 002843019, registered on June 16, 2004. The Complainant has also registered many domain names reflecting its trademarks.
Pursuant to the Registrar, the Domain Names were both registered on July 20, 2017. The Domain Names resolved, at the time of filing the Complaint, to pay-per-click sites not related to the Complainant. As to , this is still the case at the time of drafting the decision, whereas now resolves to an error page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant provides trademark registrations and argues that the trademark ORACLE CLOUD constitutes the entirety of the first Domain Name’s second level. Moreover, the additional word “outsourcing” in the second Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Hence, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. The Respondent is not making a fair or legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Names. On the contrary, the Complainant documents that the Respondent has used the Domain Names to pay-per-click pages that divert Complainant’s customers and potential customers to the goods and services of companies that are not associated with the Complainant.
As to bad faith, the Complainant argues that he Respondent was aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Names. The Respondent has used the Domain Names to pay-per-click pages to attract, for commercial gain, Internet searchers to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location. The Respondent is obtaining commercial gain from classic pay-per-click pages in the shape of click-through revenue. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is an active cybersquatter who has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration of domain names that are confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Respondent has no rights. The Respondent owns hundreds of other domain names that target third-party trademarks, such as , and . B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Procedural
The Registrar information provided for the two Domain Names shows the registrant name “Panshuailou 1” for and “Simon Pan” for . The rest of the registration details seems to be identical (email address, creation date, registrar, and city/state/country). Coupled with the fact that the Respondent owns a large number of domain names that copy well-known trademarks, it is likely that both Domain Names are owned by the same person.
Section 3(c) of the Rules provides that “the complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.” See also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2. The Panel proceeds to decide on both Domain Names. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has trademark rights in ORACLE and ORACLE CLOUD.
The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Names. In this case, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The addition of “outsourcing” does not provide sufficient distinction from the Complainant’s ORACLE mark. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the Top-Level Domain “.co”, see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing its trademarks or otherwise make use of its marks. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. It is unlikely that the Respondent chose to register the Domain Names without any knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks. As documented by the Complainant, the Respondent has used the Domain Names to
pay-per-click pages that divert Complainant’s customers to the goods and services of companies that are not associated with the Complainant. This is neither a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Names.
Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Names to pay-per-click pages is evidence of both bad faith registration and use.
The bad faith is supported by the fact that the Respondent has been engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration of domain names, and not replied to the Complaint.
For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Names and be transferred to the Complainant.
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: May 22, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy