The facts are supported by the Complainant itself, which evidently did its own ample research and in an email dated December 18, 2008 to the Respondent, said “... as near as I can tell (with various tools, including archive.org), you’ve owned this domain name straight since at least 2004, if not a couple of years before that ...”.
...
2011-03-08 - Case Details
Que los Demandados utilizan el fichero “robots.txt.” para no ser indexados por sitios como Archive.org.
Que los Demandados no se pueden escudar en la libertad de expresión, al resultar evidente que no hay una intención de crítica sino de obtención de ganancias económicas.
...
2017-01-27 - Case Details
To defend this allegation, the Respondent filed screen shots of the archived images from the Way Back Machine at <archive.org> for the disputed domain name. The screen shots show the contents of the website linked to the disputed domain name for the period December 2008 till February 2009. ...
2011-08-10 - Case Details
Also of relevance is the information contained on the “archive.org” database as to historical use of the Disputed Domain Name – see discussion below. The timeline is entirely consistent with the Respondent having applied for the trademarks when it says it did.
...
2021-12-16 - Case Details
Screenshots produced by the Complainant show that, at various times during February and March 2008, the website at the disputed domain name being used as a parking page with links relating to zip, file converters and other kinds of software.
Archive.org screenshots produced by the Respondent show extracts from motor services-related websites at the disputed domain name at various times starting from May 2008.
...
2015-06-15 - Case Details
D2023-1321 in this regard – see
discussion below.
The Complainant produces a screenshot from <archive.org> showing how it used the Disputed Domain
Name in 2013 in relation to a website selling its products. ...
2024-11-13 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Complainant’s alleged investigations regarding the holder of the
Disputed Domain Name are not provided, in fact the Complainant intentionally avoided to conduct and/or
present results of obvious relevant searches available using the Google engine, such as the LinkedIn page
of Mr. C. F., or captures available at Archive.org. website.
With regard to the identity or confusing similarity of the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark,
the Complainant supports it owns rights in OLA for a ridesharing service in India, which did not exist at time
Mr. ...
2025-07-28 - Case Details
Respondent annexed as exhibits to the Response representative publicly archived pages from the Archive.org “Wayback Machine” that present copies of the web pages that have appeared at the domain name in dispute at various times. ...
2008-03-25 - Case Details
The documents annexed to the Response (Annexes 8 and 9) do not establish this. Recourse to Archive.org and WayBackMachine do not assist either. It is therefore not possible to establish whether the present impugned activities of the Respondent (the links to the Complainant’s competitors’ products) go back to prior to 2010 or have only arisen at around the time of the two Registrant changes in April 2010 and April 2012.
...
2013-05-27 - Case Details
Around the same time, the website at the disputed domain name was also activated.
The Respondent contends that the “archive.org” page for the disputed domain name from 2015 and also the “Indiamart” page (member since December 2013) for the Respondent’s company show the following declaration:
“Justkhadi – A platform ensuring fair trade policy for rural & handmade manufacturers as well as customers. ...
2020-10-26 - Case Details