Exoanalyticjobs.com

The timeline behind exoanalyticjobs.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 ExoAnalytic Solutions, Inc. v. Brock Oliver, Exo Analytic Case No. D2026-0448 1. The Parties The Complainant is ExoAnalytic Solutions, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Brock Oliver, Exo Analytic, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <exoanalyticjobs.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 4, 2026. On February 4, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On February 4, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Di sputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown Registrant, Privacy User) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 5, 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 amendment to the Complaint on February 9, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 February 13, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 5, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 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 Founded in 2008 by three physicists to provide ballistic missile tracking and discrimination algorithms, the Complainant is a California, United States corporation whose mission now includes space awareness solutions dedicated to safeguarding space interests, world-class mission systems solutions optimizing sensor and weapon system performance, and transformative modeling, simulation, and analysis solutions enabling the advancement of military space capabilities. Through the use of real-time global sensing, highly advanced algorithms, and extensive modeling and simulation, the Complainant also provides predictive insights for critical national defense systems and missions. The Complainant has achieved success over the years, winning contract awards with government agencies such as the United States Navy, the United States Air Force and the Space Development Agency, as well as working alongside civilian organizations. These contracts and projects are highly critical, sophisticated, and expensive, with some of the Complainant’s government contracts amounting to over USD 1 million. Since its inception, the Complainant has secured tens of millions of dollars’ worth of government contracts, all of which have been provided under the EXOANALYTIC brand name. The Complainant owns registered trademarks through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including: EXOANALYTIC, United States Registration No. 7,176,296, registered on September 26, 2023, with a first use in commerce of January 1, 2009, in International Classes 42 and 45; and EXOANALYTIC SOLUTIONS, United States Registration No. 7,230,892, registered on November 28, 2023, with a first use in commerce of January 1, 2009, in International Classes 42 and 45 (hereinafter referred to as the “EXOANALYTIC Mark”). The Complainant has invested significant time and money promoting and providing its services under the EXOANALYTIC Mark and thus serves as a valuable source identifier for the Complainant’s services. The Complainant owns the domain name <exoanalytic.com> which resolves to its official website at “www.exoanalytic.com”, which it launched as early as February 2009, and which prominently displays on each webpage the EXOANALYTIC Mark. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on January 14, 2026 and resolves to an error page with no substantive content. The Respondent configured emails incorporating the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate an employee of the Complainant. The Respondent, falsely posing as an employee of the Complainant’s human resources department, tried to obtain sensitive information from unsuspecting job applicants of the Complainant. The Respondent communicated with potential job candidates, discussing fictitious employment opportunities. In one case, the Respondent sent an email to the address provided by a potential job seeker as part of a phishing scheme, using the address “[. . .] @exoanalyticjobs.com” to impersonate a human resources employee of the Complainant. In this email, the Respondent referenced the Complainant and claimed to be a human resources employee working on its behalf. The Respondent falsely claimed that the individual had been granted employment with the Complainant and requested the individual’s signature and personal and confidential contact identification. The Complainant was made aware of this fraudulent email when the job seeker reached out to the Complainant to confirm that this suspicious email was actually associated with the Complainant. The above-referenced emails were attached as an Annex to the Complaint. page 3 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 trademark as it incorporates the entirety of the EXOANALYTIC Mark, adding the term “jobs”, then the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name containing the EXOANALYTIC Mark, the Respondent was not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, and the Respondent has never been commonly known by the EXOANALYTIC Mark, or any similar name; and - the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, among other things, the Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to configure emails containing fictitious job opportunities as part of a phishing scheme to deceive individuals into believing that the jobs were being offered by the Complainant. The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove the following three elements in order to prevail in this proceeding: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that in the present case, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the EXOANALYTIC Mark. 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 trademark and the Disputed Domain Name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. page 4 It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the EXOANALYTIC Mark based on its years of use, as well as its registered trademarks for the EXOANALYTIC Mark in the United States. The consensus view is that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity. The Respondent has not rebutted this presumption, and therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the EXOANALYTIC Mark. The Disputed Domain Name consists of the EXOANALYTIC Mark in its entirety, followed by the term “jobs”, then followed by the gTLD “.com”. Where the trademark is recognizable in the Disputed Domain Name, the addition of a term such as “jobs”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8 (“where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive ... or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”). Finally, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” in a domain name is a technical requirement. Thus, it is well established that such element may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva, WIPO Case No. D2012-0182 and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EXOANALYTIC Mark. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that 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 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. In this case, given the facts as set out above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. The Respondent has not submitted any arguments or evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Furthermore, the Complainant has not authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its EXOANALYTIC Mark. Nor does the Complainant have any type of business relationship with the Respondent. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any similar name, nor any evidence that the Respondent was using or making demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Policy, paragraph 4(c). Further, based on the use made by the Respondent of the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate an employee of the Complainant’s human resources department and configure emails to perpetuate a phishing scheme does not confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1 (“Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., passing off/ impersonation) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.”). See also CMA CGM v. Diana Smith, WIPO Case No. D2015-1774 (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, holding that “such phishing scam cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name”). page 5 Here, the Respondent configured emails incorporating the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant and send those emails with fictitious employment opportunities to unsuspecting job applicants in an attempt to obtain the jobseekers’ sensitive information. Such use cannot conceivably constitute a bona fide offering of a service within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The Panel therefore concludes that nothing on the record before it would support a finding that the Respondent was making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that 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. The Panel finds that based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain, 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. First, based on the circumstances here, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name had been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its EXOANALYTIC Mark. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“[t]he only plausible explanation for Respondent’s actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant’s name and mark for commercial gain”). Second, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy due to the Respondent’s reported use of an email phishing scheme in which the Respondent sent fraudulent emails to individuals seeking jobs with the Complainant’s company. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4 (use of a domain name for per se illegitimate activity such as phishing or impersonation/passing off is considered evidence of bad faith). See also Stichting BDO v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 7151571251/gregory Motto, WIPO Case No. D2022-2023 (finding the phishing scheme and use of an email address incorporating the disputed domain name to be evidence of bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy for intentionally misleading and confusing the users into believing that the Respondent was associated and/or affiliated with the Complainant). The Panel also finds that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its rights in the EXOANALYTIC Mark when registering the Disputed Domain Name, emblematic of bad faith registration and use. It strains credulity to believe that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant or its EXOANALYTIC Mark when registering the Disputed Domain Name, as evidenced by the unique nature of the Complainant’s name and the inclusion of the EXOANALYTIC Mark in the Disputed Domain Name and incorporated into fraudulent email addresses. Thus, the Panel finds that in the present case, the Respondent had the Complainant’s EXOANALYTIC Mark in mind when registering and using the Disputed Domain Name. Finally, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name was an attempt to disrupt the Complainant’s business for commercial gain. See Newegg Inc. v. Nicole Alex and Alexander Ethan, WIPO Case No. D2019-2740 (registration of disputed domain names was likely to have been made in an attempt to receive commercial gain from their exploitation). The Panel additionally finds that the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name was also highly likely to confuse the individuals applying for positions with the Complainant into incorrectly believing that the Respondent was authorized to page 6 interview such individuals or was affiliated in some way with the Complainant. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <exoanalyticjobs.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Lynda M. Braun/ Lynda M. Braun Sole Panelist Date: March 17, 2026

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