Xaineuralmissions.com

The timeline behind xaineuralmissions.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.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION X.AI LLC v. Daniel Ajaeze, XAIneural missions Case No. D2026-0050 1. The Parties The Complainant is X.AI LLC, United States of America (“US”), represented by Polsinelli PC, US. The Respondent is Daniel Ajaeze, XAIneural missions, United Kingdom (“UK”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <xaineuralmissions.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 7, 2026. On January 8, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 9, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 9, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 13, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 January 19, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 8, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Rebecca Slater as the sole panelist in this matter on February 11, 2026. 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 is a US company, incorporated in Nevada, US. The Complainant builds artificial intelligence to accelerate human scientific discovery. The Complainant maintains a publicly accessible website hosted at the domain name <x.ai> through which its technology services are offered (including the artificial intelligence companion “Grok”). The Complainant also partners with X Corp. to bring artificial intelligence technology to more than 500 million users of the X social media platform. The Complainant holds a number of registrations for the X.AI trade mark, including the following: US Registration No. 5171511 for X.AI word mark (registered March 28, 2017) and International Registration No. 1808410 for X.AI word mark (registered February 29, 2024) (the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant also claims to have common law rights in the Trade Mark dating back to at least 2014 in connection with appointment scheduling services, providing virtual online office support staff services for businesses, and software as a service featuring software for scheduling appointments for others. The Complainant did not provide any evidence demonstrating these common law rights. The Respondent is an individual apparently located in the UK. The Respondent did not submit a response, and consequently little information is known about the Respondent. The disputed domain name was registered on November 18, 2025. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays pay-per-click (“PPC”) links relating to artificial intelligence. At the time of the Compliant, the links were titled “Artificial Intelligence Search”, “Ai Chatbot Free for Students” and “Machine Learning and Ai Platform”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: - The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known Trade Mark. The disputed domain name adds the generic words “neural” and “missions” to the Trade Mark, which does not dispel the confusing similarity. - The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s interest in the disputed domain name is to make false representations of its association with the Complainant and to impersonate the Complainant (including to job applicants). The Respondent benefits from misdirected traffic visiting its parked website. - The Respondent’s conduct in this case demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. The circumstances demonstrate that the Respondent was aware of the Trade Mark when it registered the disputed domain name. The Respondent has used the Trade Mark for a spoofing scheme page 3 targeted at candidates seeking jobs with the Complainant and the broader public. The passive parked use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely: - the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and - the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s Trade Mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, words “neural” and “missions”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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 (although the burden of page 4 proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Trade Mark and there is no evidence of any noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant made submissions in relation to the Respondent’s targeting of job applicants but did not provide any evidence in support of its claims. Accordingly, the Panel has focused on the use of the disputed domain name to host a website displaying PPC links. This use does not represent a bona fide offering as such links capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Trade Mark (for example, the link headed “Ai Chatbot Free for Students”). WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.9. However, the Panel also notes that the Respondent has not replied to or objected to the Complainant’s serious claims regarding spoofing and phishing, which the Panel expects any potential good faith registrant would object to. Moreover, although the Respondent listed an organization of XAIneural missions, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the dispute domain name for the purposes of the Policy. Rather, in these circumstances, including the lack of a Response and the Complainant’s reputation, it appears this choice of organization name was intended to suggest affiliation with the Complainant or made in an effort to avoid the present proceedings. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, there is evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith where a respondent has used the domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website. The Panel finds it highly unlikely that the disputed domain name was registered without knowledge of the Complainant and the Trade Mark, given the significant reputation of the Complainant and its related companies. The Respondent’s goal in registering and using the disputed domain name appears to be to attract Internet users for potential gain by taking unfair advantage of and creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trade Mark. This finding is reinforced by the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host a website displaying PPC links which direct Internet users to competing websites and likely generate revenue for the Respondent. page 5 The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 disputed domain name <xaineuralmissions.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Rebecca Slater/ Rebecca Slater Sole Panelist Date: February 18, 2026

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