WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions >> 2001 >> [2001] GENDND 243

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Oracle Corporation v. Internet Nexus Inc. [2001] GENDND 243 (5 February 2001)


National Arbitration Forum

DECISION

Oracle Corporation v. Internet Nexus Inc.

Claim Number: FA0012000096336

PARTIES

The Complainant is Oracle Corporation, Redwood City, CA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Karen Scarr. The Respondent is Internet Nexus Inc., Naperville, IL, USA ("Respondent").

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is myoracle.com registered with Network Solutions.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge and has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding.

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on December 29, 2000; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 3, 2001.

On January 2, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name myoracle.com is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that the Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On January 3, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 23, 2001 by which the Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to the Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on the Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@myoracle.com by e-mail.

A timely response was received and determined to be complete on January 23, 2001.

On January 30, 2001, pursuant to the Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. as Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s registration of the domain name myoracle.com is confusingly similar to its trademarks and service marks in the mark ORACLE; that the Respondent is trading on the goodwill of the Complainant’s mark and has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent contends that the domain was registered with the intent to launch a service or product surrounding the term "Predictive" or "Foretell" as described in the English Language Dictionary and that this product is distinct from that of the Complainant. The Respondent’s intention is to launch a service or product in the market research industry enabling consumer behavior prediction and reporting based on market research and survey data online. The Respondent also contends that the Complainant does not have any rights to the mark MYORACLE.

FINDINGS

    1. The Complainant, headquartered in Redwood City, California, is the world’s second largest independent software company and the world’s leading supplier of software for information management. With annual revenues of more than $10.1 billion, the company offers its database, tools and application products, along with related consulting, education, and support services, in more than 145 countries around the world. The Complainant is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,200,239 and U.S. Service Mark Registration No. 1,555,182 for the mark ORACLE. Since at least 1979, the Complainant has used the ORACLE mark in connection with the development, marketing and sale of its own software products and related services. The Complainant currently has registrations or pending applications for registration of the mark ORACLE in over 125 countries throughout the world. Accordingly, ORACLE is a famous mark and one of the Complainant’s most valuable assets.
    2. The Complainant also has a substantial and longtime presence on the Internet. The Complainant first registered the domain name ORACLE.COM with Network Solutions, Inc. on December 2, 1988 and has used the domain continually since that time. The ORACLE.COM Web site has been used to promote Oracle products and services, to provide a wide range of information about the company and its products, to provide customer support, and, since at least 1995, to offer online sales of Oracle software products and services. Since its inception, the ORACLE.COM domain has also been used to provide email addresses for the Complainant’s employees around the world, currently numbering approximately 41,000.
    3. The Complainant has also created the MY.ORACLE.COM Web site, located at http://my.oracle.com, which is scheduled for formal commercial launch in early 2001. MY.ORACLE.COM will enable users to customize a personal portal site that combines online access to the Complainant’s business application software programs and personal productivity tools with access to business information services, such as news from third party providers like The Economist, The Financial Times, CNN, Red Herring, and The Industry Standard.
    4. The Respondent, Internet Nexus Inc. or Raghavan Rajagopalan, registered the domain name myoracle.com with Network Solutions on February 24, 2000. The Respondent’s registration and use of myoracle.com was not authorized by the Complainant.
    5. In March 2000, the Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name myoracle.com came to the attention of the Complainant’s Legal Department. At that time, the myoracle.com domain auto-referred to the Respondent’s BYTESTREET.COM Web site, which offered technology products and software for sale.
    6. By October 2000, the Respondent had directed traffic under the domain name myoracle.com to the Web site for SOFTWAREHOUSE.COM, a Web site at which the Respondent likewise offers software products for sale. Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, the Respondent removed the auto-referral to the SOFTWAREHOUSE.COM Web site.
    7. Therefore, the Respondent has used the myoracle.com domain to link to a Web site where the Respondent sells software products that compete with the Complainant’s software products.
    8. On October 13, 2000, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent by certified mail to the Respondent’s administrative and billing contact, Raghavan Rajagopalan, at the address listed on the WHOIS database for myoracle.com. The letter demanded that the Respondent immediately cease and desist all use of the myoracle.com domain name and transfer it to the Complainant, and requested a response by October 31, 2000. The certified mail receipt was signed by Mr. Rajagopalan and postmarked on November 2, 2000.
    9. On November 2, 2000, Karen Scarr, Corporate Counsel for the Complainant, telephoned Mr. Rajagopalan and left him a voicemail message. Mr. Rajagopalan telephoned back later that day and Ms. Scarr spoke directly to him. Ms. Scarr told Mr. Rajagopalan that she represented Oracle Corporation and that the company was very concerned about the unauthorized use of its ORACLE mark in the myoracle.com domain name registered by Internet Nexus Inc. Mr. Rajagopalan stated that he intended to use the myoracle.com domain for a non-software-related Web site concerning prediction of consumer behavior and that he was using the word "Oracle" in the sense of its dictionary meaning. He was, however, unable to explain why the myoracle.com domain name was being used to direct traffic to Respondent’s SOFTWAREHOUSE.COM site. Mr. Rajagopalan admitted that he had registered domain names reflecting other famous trademarks, including MYDUPONT.COM and MYNESTLE.COM. In response to Ms. Scarr’s questions, Mr. Rajagopalan could not explain why he had registered those domain names, what use he planned to make of them, or what rights, if any, he had to those trademarks. He stated that he would not stop using the domain name myoracle.com and would not agree to transfer it to Complainant. Throughout the conversation, Mr. Rajagopalan referred to his own actions as being those of the Respondent, from which the Complainant inferred that Internet Nexus Inc. is the alter ego of Mr. Rajagopalan.
    10. The Respondent has registered other "my[trademark].com" domain names, many of which include well-known trademarks of third parties. They include the following notable domain names:

MYALCOA.COM

MYCATERPILLAR.COM

MYCHEVRON.COM

MYDUPONT.COM

MYKEANE.COM

MYNESTLE.COM

MYSAPIENT.COM

MYUNILEVER.COM

MYUSWEST.COM

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Respondent’s domain name simply adds the prefix "my" to the Complainant’s trademark ORACLE. The use of "my[trademark].com" or "my.[trademark].com" domain names is an increasingly common one on the Web, frequently used by businesses to designate Web sites or pages that allow users to customize the sites’ content. The Complainant is in the process of launching MY.ORACLE.COM, a portal site that will allow users to create a customized interface to the Complainant’s business application programs and other business information. Other examples of such sites include MYCNN.COM, MY.YAHOO.COM, MY.NETSCAPE.COM, MY.FINDLAW.COM, MYWEBMD.COM, MY.FOOL.COM, and MY.IVILLAGE.COM. In addition, one of the Complainant’s major competitors, SAP AG, offers a customizable

e-business software product called MYSAP.COM, which has been the subject of a major television and print advertising campaign and is promoted on SAP’s Web site at http://www.mysap.com.

Given the prevalence of "my[trademark].com" domain names on the Web, the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s famous mark ORACLE in myoracle.com would strongly indicate a connection with the Complainant. Indeed, the likelihood of such a result is enhanced by the fact that, like the Complainant’s own ORACLE.COM, the Web site linked to myoracle.com offers software products for sale to the public.

The Respondent’s domain name myoracle.com is thus confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark ORACLE and to Complainant’s Web sites ORACLE.COM and MY.ORACLE.COM. See ESPN, Inc. v. MySportsCenter.com, FA 95326 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2000) (mysportscenter.com was confusingly similar to trademark SportsCenter); State Farm Mut. Automo. Ins. Co. v. J.&B., Inc., FA 94804 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 13, 2000) (mystatefarm.com was confusingly similar to trademark State Farm); NIIT Ltd. v. Venkatram, D2000-0497 (WIPO Aug. 4, 2000) (myniit.com was confusingly similar to trademark NIIT). As such, myoracle.com also dilutes the Complainant’s ORACLE mark, which is a famous mark.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name at issue, nor has the Respondent used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc. FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by the Complainant’s marks and the Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

The Respondent has used the domain name myoracle.com to auto-refer to the Respondent’s own commercial Web sites, BYTESTREET.COM and SOFTWAREHOUSE.COM (hereinafter referred to collectively as "SOFTWAREHOUSE.COM"). SOFTWAREHOUSE.COM is a commercial Web site where the Respondent offers for sale other companies’ software products that compete with the Complainant’s products.

The Respondent is clearly using the domain name myoracle.com to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its Web site by creating a likelihood of confusion regarding whether the Complainant is the source, sponsor, affiliate or endorser of its Web site. National Football League Properties, Inc., et al. v. One Sex Entertainment Co., D2000-0118 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2000) The Respondent is trading on the goodwill in the Complainant’s ORACLE mark and has used the domain name myoracle.com to divert users trying to reach the Complainant’s Web site to Respondent’s SOFTWAREHOUSE.COM Web site, where the Respondent sells competing software products manufactured by companies other than the Complainant. While this initial confusion may have been dispelled upon reaching the Respondent’s Web site, the Respondent has nonetheless gained valuable Web site traffic from the use of the myoracle.com domain name. Id.

The Respondent has recently claimed an intent to use the myoracle.com domain name for a Web site involving prediction of consumer behavior. However, the facts show that this is a mere pretext created only after the Complainant contacted Respondent regarding the unauthorized use of myoracle.com. Moreover, the Respondent has not taken any steps towards establishing such a site. In addition, the Respondent has not offered any reasonable explanation for the choice of myoracle.com as the name for a proposed consumer behavior site. See Madonna v. Parisi D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct 12, 2000) (discounting the Respondent’s contention that it used MADONNA.COM in its ordinary dictionary meaning, i.e., the Virgin Mary, for an adult entertainment site). The only plausible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of myoracle.com is to attract users to the Respondent’s own Web site by trading on the fame of the Complainant’s mark. Id. Accordingly, the Respondent has no legitimate rights to use the mark ORACLE or the domain name myoracle.com.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed above, the Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name myoracle.com in order to divert Internet users seeking the Complainant’s site to the Respondent’s site. By doing so, the Respondent is trading on the Complainant’s goodwill in the ORACLE mark and creating a strong likelihood of confusion about the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s Web site. Thus, the Respondent has already succeeded in its apparent purpose of using the ORACLE mark to attract users to its site for commercial gain. Yahoo! Inc. et al. v. Data Art Corp., et al., D2000-0587 (WIPO Aug. 10, 2000) National Football League Properties, Inc., et al. v. One Sex Entertainment Co., D2000-0118 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2000). The Respondent’s conduct constitutes bad faith under ICANN Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

The finding of the Respondent’s bad faith is even further reinforced by the evidence of other "my[trademark].com" domain names registered by the Respondent, many of which include well-known trademarks of third parties. The Respondent has acted in bad faith by engaging in a pattern of registering domain names comprised of famous marks to which the Respondent has no legitimate rights. See America Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com, FA 93766 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2000) (finding a pattern of conduct where the Respondent has registered many domain names unrelated to the Respondent’s business which infringe on famous marks and web sites).

DECISION

Based upon the above findings and conclusions, I find in favor of the Complainant. Therefore, the relief requested by the Complainant pursuant to Paragraph 4.i of the Policy is Granted. The Respondent shall be required to transfer to the Complainant the domain name myoracle.com.

Charles K. McCotter, Jr.

Dated: February 5, 2001


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2001/243.html