Lack of detail?
I'm failing to see why Oracle101 is an "offending name" in this case. Is Oracle101 in a similar business to Oracle the database slinger? Is the offending company using branding that looks enough like Big Reds so that people may be confused by it?
I'm not seeing any explanation in the article or the judgment as to why the judgement went the way it did (other than the obvious "no defence", but that should only matter if Oracle the database biz actually had a case.)