Oraole.com

The timeline behind oraole.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Oracle International Corporation v. Domain Admin / Privacy Protect LLC PrivacyProtect org Claim Number: FA2502002142551 PARTIES Complainant is Oracle International Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Privacy Protect LLC PrivacyProtect org ("Respondent"), Massachusetts, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <oraole.com>, registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com. PANEL 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 27, 2025; Forum received payment on February 27, 2025. On March 3, 2025, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <oraole.com> domain name is registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com 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 March 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 2025 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@oraole.com. Also on March 4, 2025, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i) Complainant is a global leader in enterprise software products, services, and computer hardware systems. In 2020, Complainant was the third-largest software company globally by revenue and market capitalization. Through extensive use and promotion, the ORACLE mark has achieved widespread fame and recognition among industry professionals and the general public worldwide. Complainant holds rights in the ORACLE mark through various registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,200,239, registered July 6, 1982). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as it merely substitutes the letter "c" with the visually similar "o" and appends the gTLD ".com." ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and has not been authorized to use Complainant's marks. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent has employed the disputed domain name as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme, sending deceptive emails to one of Complainant's customers while impersonating a Complainant employee in an attempt to misappropriate funds. The disputed domain name does not resolve to any active content. Respondent's conduct has tarnished the ORACLE mark. iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent deliberately targeted the ORACLE mark without Complainant's authorization. Respondent was on actual notice of Complainant's rights in its globally renowned mark. Respondent deliberately sought to create confusion between the disputed domain name and the ORACLE mark as part of a phishing and impersonation scheme. The typosquatting engaged in by Respondent constitutes clear evidence of bad faith. The global renown of Complainant's ORACLE mark alone suffices to support a finding of bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on November 24, 2024. 2. Complainant has established rights in the ORACLE mark through various registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,200,239, registered July 6, 1982). 3. Respondent sent a phishing email to one of Complainant's customers from an email address incorporating the disputed domain name. 4. Respondent seeks to mimic Complainant's legitimate email addresses by fraudulently using the name of one of Complainant's employees as the sender and by impersonating Complainant's official collections email account. 5. The disputed domain name does not resolve to any active content. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in the ORACLE mark through various registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,200,239, registered July 6, 1982). Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish trademark rights for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. As Complainant has submitted evidence of its trademark registrations for the ORACLE mark, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the ORACLE mark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name <oraole.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's ORACLE mark, as it merely replaces the letter "c" with the visually similar "o" and appends the gTLD ".com." The Panel concurs that the substitution of a single character in a mark, coupled with the addition of a gTLD, does not negate confusing similarity for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 2005830 (Forum Aug. 31, 2022) (finding <chevcon.com> confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark because substituting one letter in the mark does not avoid confusing similarity). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ORACLE mark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Domain Admin / Privacy Protect LLC PrivacyProtect org" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant further contends that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead impersonates Complainant to carry out a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such use is inherently deceptive and fundamentally incompatible with any claim to rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that a respondent's attempt to impersonate a complainant via emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, and thus the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Complainant has submitted a report and supporting copies of emails demonstrating that Respondent sent phishing email to one of Complainant's customers from an address incorporating the disputed domain name. The Panel observes that Respondent intentionally sought to replicate Complainant's legitimate email addresses, fraudulently used the name of one of Complainant's employees as the sender, and impersonated Complainant's official collections account. Such conduct evidences use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a deceptive phishing scheme, directly targeting Complainant's rights. The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and facilitate fraudulent phishing activity constitutes 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 Leidos, Inc. v. Larry Desmond / xyz Inc., FA 1832572 (Forum Apr. 15, 2019) ("Using a confusingly similar domain name to phish for personal/financial information by passing off as a complainant in emails can evince a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)."). In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established a prima facie case against Respondent. Each of the foregoing factors supports this finding. As Respondent has neither submitted a Response nor provided any evidence to rebut Complainant's prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by impersonating Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme. The use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant for fraudulent purposes constitutes bad faith as it disrupts the complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or seeks to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). As previously noted, Respondent sent a phishing email to one of Complainant's customers using an address incorporating the disputed domain name. The Panel observes that Respondent intentionally sought to replicate Complainant's legitimate email addresses, fraudulently used the name of one of Complainant's employees as the sender, and impersonated Complainant's official collections account. Such conduct evidences use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a deceptive phishing scheme, directly targeting Complainant's rights. The Panel notes that Respondent's activities interfere with and disrupt Complainant's business. Accordingly, the Panel finds that such use constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant also asserts that Respondent deliberately targeted Complainant and its ORACLE mark without authorization. Respondent was on actual notice of Complainant's rights in these globally recognized marks, as Complainant's extensive use of the mark predates Respondent's acquisition of the disputed domain name. While constructive notice alone is insufficient to establish bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's trademark rights before registering a domain name satisfies Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (finding bad faith where the respondent's domain name and use demonstrated actual knowledge of the complainant's mark). The Panel notes that in 2020, Complainant was the third-largest software company in the world by revenue and market capitalization and has more than 430,000 customers in 175 countries, 41,000 developers and engineers, 5 million registered members of its customer and developer communities, 20,000 partners across the globe, 13,000 customer support and service specialists and 18,000 implementation consultants. As a result of the long usage and promotion of the ORACLE mark, Complainant's mark has become widely recognized around the world by both computing industry professionals and members of the general public. In light of Respondent's conduct and the international renown of Complainant's ORACLE mark, the Panel concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights at the time of registration, thereby constituting bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <oraole.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 26, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.