Oxylabsproxy.com

The timeline behind oxylabsproxy.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 Coretech lt, UAB v. he jie Case No. D2026-1114 1. The Parties The Complainant is Coretech lt, UAB, Lithuania, internally represented. The Respondent is he jie, Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <oxylabsproxy.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 16, 2026. On March 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 17, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (“Redacted f or Privacy”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 17, 2026, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on March 17, 2026. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm 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 March 18, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was April 7, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 8, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Reyes Campello Estebaranz as the sole panelist in this matter on April 13, 2026. The Panel f inds 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 proxy server provider based in Lithuania that operates under the OXYLABS and its f igurative X marks. The Complainant holds several trademark registrations f or these marks, including: - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 017875311, OXYLABS (word), registered on June 30, 2018; - International Trademark Registration No. 1435242, OXYLABS (word), registered on April 11, 2018, designating, among other jurisdictions, China; - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 018412320, X (figurative), registered on July 28, 2021, with the f ollowing graphic representation: - United States Trademark Registration No. 7021164, X (figurative), registered on April 11, 2023, with the f ollowing graphic representation: Hereinafter collectively referred to as the “OXYLABS Mark” and the “X Mark”, respectively. In addition, the Complainant is the owner of domain names corresponding to the OXYLABS Mark, including <oxylabs.io>, which resolves to its off icial international website, and <oxylabs.cn>, which resolves to its of f icial website f or the Chinese market. The disputed domain name was registered on July 2, 2025, and is currently inactive, resolving to an Internet browser error message indicating that “This site can’t be reached”. However, according to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name previously resolved to an English- language website displaying the OXYLABS Mark and a version of the X Mark at its header, in a similar shade of green, and purportedly offering proxy server services. This website f eatured a design and color scheme—green and black on a white background—similar to that of the Complainant’s official website at “www.oxylabs.io”. The website did not include any information regarding its owner or the registrant of the disputed domain name, nor did it contain any disclaimer or reference indicating a lack of af f iliation with the Complainant or its trademarks. page 3 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to its OXYLABS Mark and to its domain name <oxylabs.io>, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, followed by the term “proxy”, which ref ers to services of f ered by the Complainant and theref ore increases the likelihood of conf usion. The Complainant f urther asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as it has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate the owner of the OXYLABS and X Marks, thereby creating conf usion for commercial gain and seeking to benefit from the reputation of these marks in the proxy server services sector. The Complainant finally contends that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad f aith, with the intention of deliberately misleading consumers into believing that they are dealing with the Complainant, which enjoys a reputation as a reliable provider, and of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s business for unlawful commercial purposes. The Respondent’s website prominently displayed the OXYLABS Mark and a confusingly similar figurative X Mark, demonstrating a clear intention to mislead consumers and create a f alse association with the Complainant. The Respondent has thus f ree-ridden on the reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks and has unlawf ully diluted that reputation, exposing users to potential harm, including the risk of providing personal data and engaging in illicit activities, as well as the risk that users’ personal data and funds may be misused for unlawful purposes. Following the Complainant’s submission of documentary evidence of its trademark rights to the Registrar, the disputed domain name was deactivated and is currently inactive. However, the transf er of the disputed domain name to the Complainant is necessary to prevent any f uture unauthorized reactivation, use, or transf er to third parties. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant has submitted all relevant assertions under the Policy, and the dispute properly f alls within its scope. The Panel has the authority to decide the dispute by examining the three elements set f orth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, taking into account all relevant evidence, annexed materials, and submissions. The Panel may also conduct limited independent research pursuant to its general powers, as provided, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test f or conf using similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightf orward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. page 4 The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark f or the purposes of the Policy, namely the OXYLABS Mark and the X Mark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the OXYLABS Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name f ollowed by the term “proxy”. The Panel f inds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, the term “proxy”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Theref ore, the Panel f inds the f irst 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 f acie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shif ts 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 satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie 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 f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds that the term “oxylabs” is a coined term that is not found in any dictionary, and that nothing in the record indicates that the Respondent is commonly known by this term, or by the terms “oxylabsproxy” or “oxylabs proxy”. The Respondent’s name, as disclosed by the Registrar verification, bears no similarity to these terms. In addition, the Panel has confirmed through a search of the Global Brand Database that the Respondent holds no trademark rights in respect of these terms. 1 The Panel f urther f inds that the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not conf er any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent, nor does it cure its prior unlawf ul use. 1 Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated, inter alia, in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.8. page 5 The Panel notes that, according to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name was used to impersonate the Complainant and its business through a website that prominently displayed its trademarks and employed a design and colour scheme similar to those used on the Complainant’s official websites, thereby deliberately creating a risk of user conf usion and a f alse impression of affiliation with the Complainant. Such conduct constitutes unlawf ul activity and cannot give rise to any rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent. Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name f or illegitimate or illegal activity can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. Accordingly, the Panel f inds 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 f aith. In the present case, the Panel has confirmed that Internet searches for the term “oxylabs” consistently return results ref erring to the Complainant, its prior rights, and its proxy server services business. The Panel f urther notes the distinctiveness of the OXYLABS Mark and the composition of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the OXYLABS Mark followed by a term referring to the same sector in which the Complainant uses the mark. Additionally, the fact that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a website that not only prominently displayed the OXYLABS Mark and a similar version of the X Mark, using a comparable colour scheme and design, but also targeted the same proxy server services sector, makes it evident that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark at the time of registration and intentionally targeted it in bad f aith. The Respondent’s website attempted to impersonate the Complainant in order to derive unfair commercial benef it f rom this f alse association. Accordingly, having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under the Policy. In particular, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, f or 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 and the services offered therein, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, likely as part of a f raudulent scheme. Regarding the current non-use of the disputed domain name, panels have held that passive holding of a domain name (including use of a blank or “coming soon” page) does not, in itself, prevent a finding of bad faith. On the contrary, in assessing the totality of the circumstances of each case, panels have f ound that registration and non-use of a domain name may still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3). In the present case, having considered the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademarks and the composition of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad f aith under the Policy. Finally, the Respondent’s failure to submit a response, and thus to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case or to provide any evidence challenging the Complainant’s allegations of bad faith, further supports a f inding of bad f aith. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 6 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <oxylabsproxy.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Reyes Campello Estebaranz/ Reyes Campello Estebaranz Sole Panelist Date: April 27, 2026

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