About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Oracle International Corporation v. Panshuailou 1, Simon Pan

Case No. DCO2018-0009

1. The Parties

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 <oraclecloud.co> and <oracleoutsourcing.co> (the “Domain Names”) are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (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 <oracleoutsourcing.co>, this is still the case at the time of drafting the decision, whereas <oraclecloud.co> 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 <amercanexpess.com>, <disneystorw.com> and <m9crosoft.com>.

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 <oraclecloud.co> and “Simon Pan” for <oracleoutsourcing.co>. 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 <oraclecloud.co> and <oracleoutsourcing.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: May 22, 2018

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/