Oracleonf.vip

The timeline behind oracleonf.vip

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 Corporation and Oracle International Corporation v. s t l l star Claim Number: FA2602002207316 PARTIES Complainant is Oracle Corporation and Oracle International Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Neema Mohammadizad of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is s t l l star ("Respondent"), Hong Kong. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <oracleonf.vip>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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 25, 2026; Forum received payment on February 25, 2026. On February 26, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <oracleonf.vip> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 March 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 23, 2026 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@oracleonf.vip. Also on March 2, 2026, 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 24, 2026, 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS There are two Complainants in this matter: Oracle Corporation and Oracle International Corporation. Complainants assert that Oracle International Corporation is a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Oracle Corporation and the owner of the ORACLE marks. The applicable provisions concerning multiple complainants are found in UDRP Rule 3(a) and Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) provides that "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." 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." Prior panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to permit multiple complainants to proceed jointly where a sufficient connection between them is established. See Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic & Paralympic Games v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006) ("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.") Similarly, 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 incorporated in the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient nexus between the complainants based on a licensing agreement regarding the use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Forum Nov. 5, 2001) ("This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.") Panel finds that a sufficient nexus exists between Complainants and, accordingly, treats them as a single entity for the purposes of this proceeding. Hereinafter, Complainants will be referred to collectively as "Complainant." PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i) Complainant has utilized the ORACLE word mark in connection with its products and services for more than forty years, establishing itself as a global leader in technology and software solutions. Since 1988, Oracle has operated its "ORACLE FINANCIALS" suite and holds numerous trademark registrations, inter alia, for the mark ORACLE (U.S. Reg. No. 1,555,182) for database management and for the mark ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES (U.S. Reg. No. 3,638,212) for financial analytics and risk management software. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as it incorporates the ORACLE trademark in its entirety. The addition of the suffix "onf," an acronym referencing "ORACLE FINANCE NETWORK," reinforces, rather than diminishes, the false association with Complainant's established financial services and ERP applications. ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent. Respondent has no right to own or use any domain name incorporating Complainant's famous ORACLE marks, and nothing in Respondent's Whois information suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not utilize the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is exploiting the disputed domain name for financial gain by misleadingly diverting consumers to a website branded "ORACLE GLOBAL FINANCIAL ECOSYSTEM." iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, demonstrating a clear intent to impersonate Complainant and exploit the ORACLE trademark. The associated website prominently uses the ORACLE name to claim it is building an "on-chain financial super ecosystem" involving asset issuance, trading, and lending. By promoting an "ONF" token and "ORACLE FINANCE NETWORK" governed by an "ORACLE DAO," the site creates a false impression of being an official Oracle-affiliated financial platform. These elements are designed to capitalize on the goodwill of Complainant's famous marks in the technology and financial sectors. The use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, without any legitimate connection, constitutes opportunistic bad faith. Furthermore, while the domain currently resolves to a "404 Not Found" page, such passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith under these circumstances. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on May 7, 2025. 2. Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations, inter alia, for the mark ORACLE (U.S. Reg. No. 1,555,182) for database management and for the mark ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES (U.S. Reg. No. 3,638,212) for financial analytics and risk management software. 3. The disputed domain name's associated website prominently uses the ORACLE name to claim it is building an "on-chain financial super ecosystem" involving asset issuance, trading, and lending. By promoting an "ONF" token and "ORACLE FINANCE NETWORK" governed by an "ORACLE DAO," the site creates a false impression of being an official Oracle-affiliated financial platform. 4. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a "404 Not Found" page. 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 Overview 3.1 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 mark ORACLE (U.S. Reg. No. 1,555,182) for database management and in the mark ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES (U.S. Reg. No. 3,638,212) for financial analytics and risk management software. Registration of a mark with the USPTO constitutes a valid demonstration of rights in a mark. As Complainant has submitted evidence of such registration, Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the ORACLE and ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <oracleonf.vip>, is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it fully incorporates the ORACLE mark, with the mere addition of the generic letters "onf." Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the addition of a descriptive term and a gTLD is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. Here, the disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant's mark and adds only the suffix "onf," an acronym referencing "ORACLE FINANCE NETWORK," and the ".vip" gTLD. Accordingly, Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ORACLE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)." 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 Overview 3.1 ("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 "s t l l star" 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). Additionally, Complainant argues that 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. Complainant contends that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant. In support, Complainant has submitted a screenshot of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. The Panel observes that when a respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as a complainant or an authorized entity, the Panel may find that respondent has failed to demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's use of the domain name to feature the complainant's mark and related content did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).) The Panel notes that the disputed domain name's associated website prominently uses the ORACLE name to claim it is building an "on-chain financial super ecosystem" involving asset issuance, trading, and lending. By promoting an "ONF" token and "ORACLE FINANCE NETWORK" governed by an "ORACLE DAO," the site creates a false impression of being an official Oracle-affiliated financial platform. The Panel finds that Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's name and mark, while claiming to build an "on-chain financial super ecosystem," involving asset issuance, trading, and lending, constitutes passing off. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent's passing off activities and impersonation do not constitute a use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel concludes that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing circumstances. As Respondent has failed to file a Response or otherwise 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 argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves displays Complainant's mark, falsely holding itself out as a legitimate financial offering. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and offer similar or competing services may constitute evidence of bad faith attraction for commercial gain. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that passed off as the complainant and offered online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant's business.) The Panel recalls the screenshot submitted by Complainant, which shows that the website associated with the disputed domain name prominently displays Complainant's name and mark, and creates a false impression of being an official ORACLE-affiliated financial platform. The Panel finds that such conduct is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended to divert Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's website for commercial gain. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). 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 <oracleonf.vip> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 26, 2026 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.