Zudem sei der streitige
Domainname ausweislich zweier von Screenshots (vom 19.12.2020 und vom 24.12.2021), die über die
Archivwebsite „archive.org“ abgerufen wurden, seit mehr als zwei Jahren nicht in einschlägiger Weise
benutzt worden.
...Sinngemäß bezieht sich der
Beschwerdeführer hierauf, wenn er unter Vorlage zweier Screenshots (vom 19.12.2020 und vom
24.12.2021, abgerufen über „archive.org“) vorträgt, der streitige Domainname sei seit mehr als zwei Jahren
nicht in einschlägiger Weise benutzt worden.
...
2023-10-23 - Case Details
- Que, además, el Demandado no ha tenido la intención de utilizar el nombre de dominio en disputa para generar contenidos propios, no habiendo albergado nunca, desde su registro, hace prácticamente dos años, contenido alguno, como acredita la herramienta web “WayBack Machine” contenida en “archive.org”. A la vista de ello, resulta evidente que el Demandado no ha tenido la intención de crear ni usar un sitio web legítimo, sino aprovecharse de los Derechos Previos de la Demandante.
...Al no contestar a la Demanda, tampoco se ha proporcionado por el Demandado ninguna evidencia de haber usado o haber iniciado preparativos para el uso del nombre de dominio en disputa en relación con una oferta de buena fe de productos o servicios, sino que, por el contrario, el mismo se encuentra carente de contenido y no consta en la herramienta web “WayBack Machine” contenida en “archive.org” que el mismo haya tenido contenido alguno desde su fecha de creación.
Además, la completa identidad del nombre de dominio en disputa y los Derechos Previos de la Demandante y la circunstancia de que éstos se refieran a una denominación de fantasía carente de significado en español, hacen difícil que tal denominación pueda guardar alguna conexión con el Demandado que pudiera justificar el registro del nombre de dominio en disputa, sin que existan en el expediente evidencias de las que se desprenda lo contrario.
...
2017-07-17 - Case Details
Por el contrario la Demandante ha acreditado según consta en los resultados de archive.org que acompañó, y que sirven como prueba1, que los nombres de dominio en disputa carecen de actividad, lo que prima facie, indicaría que nunca habrían sido utilizados desde su registro.
...Palazzi
Experto Único
Fecha: 3 de octubre de 2011
1 En relación al uso de Internet Wayback Machine (Archive.org) ver: Lan Airlines S.A. v. Joan F. Casas, Ks@s Intl,
Caso OMPI No. D2010-0008 ; La Francaise des Jeux v. ...
2011-10-10 - Case Details
The Panel notes however that the first capture of by <archive.org> was on April 5, 2006.
No information is available about the Respondent save that he appears to operate a web design business under the name Atmos Media and has an address in the town of Anglesea which is located in the Surf Coast region of Victoria.
...The Panel therefore proceeds to determine the matter on the basis of the information contained in the Complaint, the Panel's viewing of the parties’ respective websites and a search of the disputed domain name at <archive.org>. The Panel has also had recourse to its knowledge of the various newspaper titles in use in the state of Victoria.
6. ...
2012-01-03 - Case Details
The Declaration and the Response also omit squarely to address the question of how long the sponsored link advertising appeared on Respondent’s parking page; Respondent alleges only that the parking page was displayed “temporarily,” however screens captured by the Wayback Machine on www. archive.org show that a parking page with commercial advertisements was visible at least as early as June 2010, and at various times thereafter.
...The Panel has also viewed archives of the parking page to which the disputed domain name routed from 2010 to the present at www. archive.org.
3 All the correspondence described here is included in annexes to the Complaint.
4 Among other things, the Panel notes that to accept a Reply without extending proceedings to permit further comment or filing by a respondent would also be inadvisable in most circumstances.
5 Since the Panel concludes that Respondent’s website contains commercial content, however, the Panel refrains from expressing a view on this apparent split of authority.
6 Offerings were made via the website linking to DJs and producers other than Complainant.
7 E. g. , WIPO Overview 2. 0, paragraph 3. 8: “Panels have found that a domain name registrant will normally be deemed responsible for content appearing on a website at its domain name, even if such registrant may not be exercising direct control over such content . . . . ...
2013-01-28 - Case Details
Respondent has also included a WhoIs printout for the disputed domain name that shows the disputed domain name in the name of the prior owner with a “creation date” of May 30, 2003, and printouts from the Wayback Machine at <archive.org> that are undated, but which from the URL printed at the bottom of the pages, appear to all be pages from a 2012 website at the disputed domain name for the prior owner’s FLEET SHEETS bedding products (with a 2009 copyright notice).
...Given Respondent’s submission of undated archival records in support of having acquired common law rights in the FLEET SHEETS mark, 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 records for the disputed domain name that are available through the Wayback Machine at <archive.org>. WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 4.8.
Notably, the archival records only show that there was a website at the disputed domain name featuring the prior owner’s FLEET SHEETS bedding products in March 2010 up through August 2012. ...
2020-05-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions.
2The Panel sought information from the Internet Archive (archive.org) to find such evidence of use of this disputed domain name.
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.
...
2024-12-05 - Case Details
Complainant also maintains that Respondent's use of "robot.txt" to block the ability of "Archive.org" to access past contents of the disputed domain name is without justification and an indicator of bad faith. ...Notably, while Complainant argues that the use of "robot.txt" has blocked the ability of "Archive.org" to access past contents of the disputed domain name, Complainant has provided a domain name report from "DomainTools.com" that includes screen shots up through the end of 2012 and from February 2016. ...
2016-07-18 - Case Details
Il ressort des captures d’écran disponibles sur “https://archive.org” que le 8 août 2018, que le nom de domaine litigieux redirigeait vers un site Internet faisant la promotion des activités du Requérant. ...Des captures d’écran du site Internet rattaché au nom de domaine litigieux disponibles sur « http://archive.org » indiquent que pour un temps en 2018, le nom de domaine litigieux renvoyait vers un site faisant la promotion de l’activité du Requérant, ce qui correspond à la chronologie mise en avant par le Requérant que la société du Défendeur a été engagée par le Requérant pour faire enregistrer ses noms de domaine et créer son site Internet. ...
2019-12-03 - Case Details
It has in the past, according to evidence from Archive.org filed by the Complainant, resolved to webpages which promote the activities of a charity/campaigning organisation called “Advocates Across America, Inc.”, which offered resources to assist parents with children who have learning disabilities to campaign for their children’s rights. ...
2018-02-19 - Case Details
Click fraud is detected inter alia through monitoring, at the keyword feed end (i.e. at Yahoo, Google, or other keyword payment provider), the IP addresses of users referred by the PPC ads. Allowing access to web crawlers such as the archive.org robot would immediately register as hundreds of thousands of identical IP addresses being sent through to the advertisers by a robot program, for which the advertiser is charged.
...FIFTH – Many of the Respondent's domain names are “geo-targeted” – i.e. the
specific content shown depends on the geographic location of the visitor's IP address. In point of fact, if the archive.org agent did store the copies seen by it of the Respondent's web pages, only the history “as seen in the US” would be available. ...
2010-03-11 - Case Details
Towns
Panelist
Diane Cabell
Panelist
Dated: April 5, 2012
1 The Panel has undertaken limited research by visiting the website to which the disputed domain name routes, and archives of the website at <archive.org>, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 4.5. ...The allegation “upon information and belief” that Respondent’s website was used only to display competitive links or as a “non-functional holding website posted by the Registrar” is inconsistent with readily available archives at <archive.org>, showing substantial periods when the website displayed several links based on dictionary meanings of the “tucks” term. ...
2012-05-04 - Case Details
The previous owner wanted a price of USD 75,000 because the Domain Name was generating monthly revenue for him, as it was being used for pay-per-click (“PPC”) advertising as shown in the Archive.org screenshot of April 23, 2012, which is the same screenshot provided by Complainant in evidence.
...Respondent claims that immediately after acquiring the Domain Name he promoted his new project with a landing page, as shown in the first available Archive.org screenshot for the Domain Name (after his acquisition on June 20, 2012), dated July 21, 2012.
...
2018-02-05 - Case Details
In this respect, the Panel noted that the website associated to the disputed domain name contains a stylized “S”, if other factors were present that could possibly support a finding of likely confusion. However, limited factual research on “archive.org” shows that Respondent has been using (along with other variations of text and content) the stylized “S” on the website associated to the disputed domain name prior to the Complainant’s application for the invoked UK figurative trademark No. 3023654, containing a stylized letter “S” and the words “simple call”. ...
2014-06-10 - Case Details
Exhibited at Annex H to the Complaint is a copy of contents of pages of the website “www.tractorsupply.com”, copies of the Archive.org report and a WhoIs search for additionally, the Complainant is also the registrant of the following domain names:
, and .
...
2011-06-20 - Case Details
While the Complainant provided undated side-by-side
screenshots in support of its contentions, the Panel has independently verified, via Archive.org, that the
Respondent’s website closely mimicked the Complainant’s, included the Complainant’s Logo, and even
stated “Welcome to ExamTopics” between at least September 2024 and March 20251. ...
2025-09-26 - Case Details
- The Panel visited the disputed domain name at Archive.org website and was able to verify that the
Wayback Machine has not archived any URL3 of the disputed domain name.
...
2023-07-17 - Case Details
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
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