De plus, le Nom de Domaine a été réservé par le Défendeur au moins une année après la réservation du nom de domaine par le Requérant (l’outil de recherche en ligne <archive.org> attestant de l’existence d’un contenu de en novembre 2001, alors que le Nom de Domaine a été réservé par le défendeur à fin 2002). ...
2008-05-26 - Case Details
Before any notice of the current dispute, Respondent has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Searches performed on Archive.org indicate that the websites associated with the disputed domain names have never had any content. ...
2011-02-11 - Case Details
The Panel was unable to verify any prior content of the website maintained at the disputed domain name because an inquiry through the Wayback Machine at <archive.org> was returned with the notation “We are sorry, access to [disputed domain name] has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.” ...
2010-04-30 - Case Details
A Domain Report of the company Domain Tools, LLC of March 28, 2013 as well information at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (archive.org) show that there was no permanent use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent but use has been made in various ways by various companies during the years. ...
2013-09-17 - Case Details
Respondent also attaches a bank statement allegedly showing a relationship between OCC and SmartBuy, an email message indicating that the disputed domain name was registered in 2004 and then renewed in 2006 and 2007, an email message stating that the disputed domain name “has always been in the same account SMARTBUY2 since the year 2007”, a control panel screenshot showing “Primary Account Information” listing Oceanside Capital dba SmartBuy and Andy Tran, a letter from an individual at CalPOP stating that CalPOP has been doing business with Oceanside Capital dba SmartBuy since 2002 and worked on a project for the disputed domain name in 2004, IP address history information suggesting that the disputed domain name resolved to a CalPOP IP address as of March, 2005, an archive.org screenshot of an under construction page for the disputed domain name as of March 18, 2004, a letter on “Perk Systems” letterhead signed by “Lance Rhodes, President, Perk Corporation” stating that in 2005 “Perk Corporation” began work on a website for the disputed domain name but never received the necessary materials and eventually closed the task as incomplete, an invoice from “Perk Systems” for hardware and web design including web design for the disputed domain name (this invoice is dated February 3, 2005 and shows a USD 0 balance due as a result of the application of credits but is marked as paid on March 3, 2005), a February 28, 2005 check in the amount of the invoice (pre-credits) from SmartBuy, a declaration from Andy Tran (a) stating that OCC asked him to register the disputed domain name on January 13, 2004, (b) stating that work was commenced on a website for the disputed domain name, and (c) explaining changes in the registrar for the disputed domain name but asserting that the registrant has always remained the same, and a business plan for the alleged “We Invest in You” business.
6. ...
2013-07-01 - Case Details
En cuarto y último lugar, porque este Experto no pudo corroborar la veracidad de la prueba en comento en los archivos de Internet (accesibles en “http://archive.org/web/”), los cuales no contienen ninguna entrada sobre el portal del Titular.
Aun suponiendo que la única documental exhibida por el Promovente con respecto al contenido del sitio Web del Titular sea fidedigna, este Experto determina que la misma acredita un hecho efímero, o lo que es lo mismo una conducta transitoria de suyo insuficiente para concluir que el nombre de dominio en disputa “se utiliza” (nótese el empleo del tiempo “presente”) de mala fe, como precisa el artículo 1.a.iii de la Política.
...
2016-01-22 - Case Details
El contenido del portal “www.granulox.mx” es idéntico a aquel que tenía el sitio “www.granulox.online”, según puede apreciarse en los archivos de Internet (“https://archive.org/web”).
B. Titular
El Titular no contestó la Solicitud, dejando así de oponer las excepciones y defensas que pudieran convenir a sus intereses.
6. ...
2020-12-21 - Case Details
The Complainant provided screenshots of the web pages resolving from the disputed domain name at various times in the past, obtained from Archive.org. On April 26, 2015, the disputed domain name resolved to a page at Catchy.com containing the text: “nuro Do you like this domain? ...
2021-09-22 - Case Details
The Panel has
reviewed the Complainant’s website at and the screenshots of the website
previously displayed at the disputed domain name submitted as annexes to the Complaint, as well as the
ones available on the Internet Archive at <archive.org>1 and notes that, while some of their fonts are similar,
1 As stated in section 4.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “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. ...
2022-08-02 - Case Details
After further correspondence from the Complainant’s representatives, information stored by the Wayback Machine at <archive.org> shows that the disputed domain name subsequently redirected to a website at “www.techaluminium.com”, promoting the business of “Tech Aluminium Australia Pty Ltd” which, amongst other things, stated “We are going through some exciting changes. ...
2019-01-30 - Case Details
Upon information and belief, based on a search on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (“web. archive.org”), the Complainants contend that the Disputed Domain Name has been parked from at least June 2, 2004 and has remain parked though at least February 22, 2011 on a webpage featuring sponsored links for travel and restaurant deals as well as other travel-related links (sample printouts from 2004 to 2009 are attached as Exhibit E to the Complaint). ...
2011-05-03 - Case Details
No obstante, de acuerdo con la información que el Experto ha podido obtener del archivo histórico de contenidos de sitios de Internet Archive.org (disponible en http://www.archive.org), durante un tiempo ambos sitios web ofrecieron los servicios de comercio electrónico de Promo Business Solutions, SCP (la sociedad originariamente titular de los Nombres de Dominio de la que la Demandante era socia).
...
2010-08-24 - Case Details
No archives relating to the disputed domain names were available at Archive.org. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, paragraph 4.5.
2 Copies of the demand letter, Respondent's email response and Complainants' reminders are annexed to the Complaint.
3 Both the elements of bad faith registration and bad faith use must be established. ...
2010-06-29 - Case Details
Moreover, the “Internet Archive Wayback Machine” at <archive.org> has no stored web pages to which the Domain Name previously resolved.
The Complainants report numerous unsuccessful attempts to communicate by telephone, email, and courier with the Respondent or the Respondent’s registered administrative and technical contact Jeff Schaengold. ...
2006-07-05 - Case Details
First of all it does not sound probable that such redirection can happen by “mistake”. Secondly a search in the archive.org files reveals that at least for the whole year 2004, the domain name appears to have been used in the same manner. ...
2005-06-07 - Case Details
When Healthy Back’s registration for the domain lapsed,
it was registered through the SnapBack service of SnapNames. Archived web pages
from <archive.org>, show that the registration was handled by SnapNames.
SnapNames will monitor particular domains for its customers and will notify
them when they become available for registration. ...
2003-06-23 - Case Details
The Respondent submits a cache history and related email correspondence obtained from the Archive.org Wayback Machine alleged to show that the Respondent controlled the website associated with the disputed domain name, as of September 27, 2003, at the latest.
...The question necessarily becomes whether there is evidence that the Complainant had any relevant prior trademark rights as of November 29, 2002, (accepting the sworn Declaration's evidence), or on July 29, 2003 (alternatively, accepting the Archive.org code evidence), or even as late as August 17, 2004, (alternatively, accepting the earliest-available DomainTools archive evidence).
...
2014-06-24 - Case Details
On an unspecified date after entering into the lease agreement, the Respondent exercised the option to purchase the disputed domain name.
January 18, 2005: An archive.org screenshot of the Whois shows "DUNE.COM / CLICKTHISLINK" as registrant of the disputed domain name.
...The lease agreement provided for exercise by August 20, 2004 but, in any case, an archive.org screenshot shows that the Respondent was listed as the registrant by January 18, 2005.
How likely is it that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name with reference to the Complainant?
...
2014-06-23 - Case Details
In addition, according to the screenshots submitted by the Complainant and the historical web site records archived by Archive.org, the exact same text displayed on the Complainant’s web site before the registration of the disputed domain name has been reproduced on the Respondent’s web site “www.aprireinfranchising.info”, which promotes services identical to the ones offered by the Complainant.
...
2013-08-05 - Case Details
The Respondent denies the Complainant's allegation that he is selling various packages on numerous other luxury trains along with the "Deccan Odyssey", as no evidence has been submitted by the Complainant to prove this. The Respondent has filed screenshots from "archive.org" to disprove the Complainant's contentions.
C. Parties Supplemental Submissions
The Panel, by a procedural order dated June 29, 2015, called upon the Complainant to provide a copy of the agreement and the written termination between the parties, referred to in the Complaint. ...
2015-07-30 - Case Details