The Complainant might also have considered it appropriate to exhibit and discuss historical records of the website at the disputed domain name from the Internet Archive at <archive.org>.
In any case, the Panel notes that no evidence has been placed before it which indicates that the disputed domain name has ever been used to target Malayalam speakers or otherwise in a manner which is relevant to the Complainant’s business.
...
2018-10-02 - Case Details
The Respondent denies that the Disputed Domain Name has never been used. He says the earliest entry
available on <archive.org> is in 2000. This shows a “snapshot” of a web page which comprises an enquiry
form headed “International Business Automation”. ...It seems likely that this is
the case – in particular the snapshot f rom <archive.org> would appear to show that by 2000 at least the
Respondent was conducting some business activity using this name. ...
2023-10-20 - Case Details
Manifiesta que el registro del nombre de dominio tuvo lugar el 1 de octubre de 2004 a nombre de Cenfor SL
según un pantallazo obtenido en el nombre de dominio <archive.org>.
página 3
En particular, sostiene que siendo la Demandante la titular de las marcas, la mera tenencia del nombre de
dominio en disputa por el Demandado le coloca con una ventaja competitiva respecto del resto de empresas
locales y, por ello, califica dicha situación como de un uso desleal de la marca.
...
2026-08-17 - Case Details
The Complainant also states that “[i]n this case, the Respondent or its predecessors registered the
domain name on March 29, 2022, just a few days prior to Complainant
establishing rights in its Kaizen Mark on April 5, 2022. However, according to archive.org, the domain name
was not developed into a live website until October 2022, well after Complainant established rights in the
Kaizen Mark.”
...
2024-11-28 - Case Details
As these are undated, the Panel in its discretion under its general powers pursuant to paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules has reviewed archival website pages for the domain name which are available through the Internet Archive at <archive.org> and Domaintools.com. WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 4.8. The Panel has confirmed that since at least as early as August 4, 2004, Complainant had a website at the domain name that featured the name and mark DESIGNER PARFUMS and provided information regarding Complainant and its fragrance and cosmetic products....
2019-06-26 - Case Details
In reply to Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1, the Complaint stated that: (i) the websites to which the disputed domain names resolved, as contended in the Complaint, were not indexed by Archive.org and so it was unable to provide evidence in support of those contentions; (ii) at the date of the reply to Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 the disputed domain names resolved to the website at “www.brilliantearth.com.au”, on which appeared the name of the Respondent and a link to another website operated by the Respondent; and (iii) the domain name was registered by the Respondent on February 12, 2011.
...
2016-04-01 - Case Details
Bij een onderzoek naar de domeinnaam <123inkt.nl> van Eiser met de “Wayback Machine” (<archive.org>), waarmee sinds de jaren 90 grote aantallen web pagina’s zijn vastgelegd, is gebleken dat Eiser de domeinnaam <123inkt.nl> sinds het jaar 2000 gebruikt. ...
2018-11-16 - Case Details
Bij een onderzoek naar de domeinnaam <123inkt.nl> van Eiser met de “Wayback Machine” (<archive.org>), waarmee sinds de jaren 90 grote aantallen web pagina’s zijn vastgelegd, is gebleken dat Eiser de domeinnaam<123inkt.nl> sinds het jaar 2000 gebruikt. oorts is een start pagina uit 2008 gevonden met in grote letters “123inkt.nl” bovenaan, naast de vennootschapsnaam van Eiser. ...
2018-11-16 - Case Details
Several cases admit the use of Wayback Machine (Archive.org): Lan Airlines S.A. v. Joan F. Casas, Ks@s Intl,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0008; La Francaise des Jeux v. ...
2011-03-21 - Case Details
Afin de tenter d’éclaircir ces points et en l’absence d’indications dans la plainte, et de réponse du Défendeur, l’Expert a poursuivi ses vérifications en consultant le site Internet <archive.org>. Il apparaît que le nom de domaine litigieux a bien fait l’objet d’une exploitation par le passé, par exemple courant 2004, en liaison avec la compétition de voitures radio commandées susmentionnée.
...
2014-03-10 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel conducted its independent search through the search engine and noticed
that the Complainant operates the website at the domain name . The Panel’s further search at “https://archive.org/”
shows that the Complainant has been indicated as the operate of this website since at least November 2014. ...
2024-02-01 - Case Details
However, the Panel did visit the archived captures of the website associated with the disputed domain name
using “archive.org”, which do reflect that the disputed domain name previously resolved to the Complainant’s website at
“www.fujaelaw.com”, reinforcing the Panel’s finding that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant and its website and
opportunistically registered it within a couple months of the disputed domain name’s expiry. ...
2024-05-27 - Case Details
However, the Panel did verify the Complainant’s allegations relating to the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name by utilizing the archiving service at <archive.org>, and viewing a screenshot of “www.oanda2u.com” taken on September 20, 2020. That screenshot depicted the Respondent’s use of the Trademark and the Complainant’s logo, to purportedly promote various services relating to foreign exchange, and to offer downloads for a currency converter app. ...
2021-01-25 - Case Details
See section 3.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 (the use of “robots.txt” on the Internet Archive at <archive.org> may support an inference that a respondent has sought to prevent access to trademark-abusive or otherwise incriminating content).
...
2019-08-27 - Case Details
As Complainant’s trademark rights in CARVANA only arose in 2013, it appears that
Respondent registered the disputed domain name before Complainant developed any trademark rights in
CARVANA and thus could not have been acting in bad faith.1
1 The Panel in its discretion under its general powers pursuant to paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules has for the benefit of the
Parties reviewed archival website pages for the domain name which are publicly available through the Internet Archive
at <archive.org>. WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 4.8. From what the Panel can see, the use of the disputed domain name has changed
over its lifespan since 2000. ...
2022-12-23 - Case Details
Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0226.
The Panel also visited the Archive.org database and was able to verify that the disputed domain name has not been subject to any use and on the contrary it has been to resolve to a web page offering the disputed domain name for sale together with the contact details of the Respondent. ...
2017-12-28 - Case Details
The Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel visited the Archive.org database and was able to verify that the disputed domain name has not been subject to any use since the year 2005, except for the inclusion of links to ads related to the Complainant’s products and its competitors1.
...
2017-11-29 - Case Details
Based on information obtained via the Wayback Machine at <archive.org>:
(a) the disputed domain name initially resolved to a webpage offering the domain name for sale via BuyDomains.com;
(b) then, for an indeterminate period prior to March 28, 2010, the disputed domain name resolved to a website with sponsored links or simply offering the disputed domain name for sale;
(c) between March 28, 2010 and October 28, 2012, the disputed domain name resolved to a website which the Complainant has described as a personal blog. ...
2019-03-25 - Case Details
Steinhardt
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 2, 2011
1 The Panel has undertaken limited research by visiting online archives of the website to which the disputed domain name routes at <archive.org>, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, paragraph 4.5. The appearance of the website in archives is consistent with its appearance and content in the screen capture referred to in Note 2, below.
2 A copy of the letter, containing a screen shot of the website to which the disputed domain name allegedly routed, is appended to the Complaint as Annex 8.
3 It is also unnecessary for the Panel to rule on the repeated allegations upon which the Complaint so heavily relies: that Complainants’ trademarks are well known. ...
2011-08-15 - Case Details
It appears that all the versions of the Respondent’s website cached at <archive.org> since March 31, 2013, the earliest date for which a website was stored, have featured content purporting to be by and about the Al Ghurair corporate group, including the “Founders’ Message” which the Complainant contends is fake.1 It appears therefore that the disputed domain name has been used right from its inception in bad faith under the terms of the Policy.
...
2014-04-09 - Case Details