0.16 Determining the Date of Registration
Determining the date of a disputed domain name’s registration of often crucial where there is a question of whether the domain name registration or trademark rights came first. Nevertheless, the date of registration is often unknowable by a Complainant prior to bringing a Complaint because Whois privacy has deteriorated historical Whois records which could often be previously used to determine when a domain name changed hands to the current registrant.
Parties and Panels sometimes are misled about the registration date. Such misinformation can come from the “Creation Date” which is not in fact usually the registration date of the current registrant since the domain name has changed hands since it was originally created. Other times misinformation can come from the Registrar Verification sent by the Registrar to the Provider and which is sometimes disclosed to the Complainant or both of the parties. A Registrar may state in its Verification that the domain name was registered on a particular date, however the Registrar will usually only actually be providing the date that the domain name was registered at that particular registrar, leaving the possibility that prior to that the domain name was registered by the registrant at another registrar.
Although registration dates may not be easily or conclusively determined by Complainants, Complainants must still make the effort to investigate registration dates. Complainants can do this by compiling circumstantial evidence of when a domain name was registered by the Respondent. Such circumstantial evidence can include for example, evidence of the change of use of a domain name based upon historical web archives or a change of registrar. Such evidence if sufficient can sometimes be used to draw a reasonable and supported inference of the registration date or at least try to narrow down the date range.
Complainants and even Panels sometimes make the error of assuming the Creation Date is the registration date when the Creation Date far precedes the current registrant’s registration date. Panels should not investigate themselves but rather Complainants should furnish evidence of the registration date to the Panel where the registration date is relevant to the dispute. Respondents should be clear and forthcoming on their registration date and not represent by commission or omission, the Creation Date as their date of registration. Respondents should be expected to make an effort to furnish the Panel with evidence of their registration date, such as a registration or transfer receipt. Where such documentary evidence is no longer available to a Respondent, a Respondent may try to prove its registration date through circumstantial or declaratory evidence.
Additional Information
Relevant Decisions
Instagram, LLC v. Adnan Sehitler and Ali Dilsiz, WIPO D2024-4188 <instafollowers.co> and <instatakipci.com>, 3-Member, Transfer
It transpires from the above history in respect of each of the disputed domain names that the Respondent was not the first registrant of the disputed domain names in 2013 but became the subsequent registrant by acquiring the same at soonest from October 2017 for <instafollowers.co> and November 2014 for <instatakipici.com> (assuming that the Respondent was behind the so-called eponymous companies), or at the latest in 2019 for <instafollowers.co> and 2020 for <instatakipici.com> (dates from when the Proxy Service is used). Hence, the statement of the Respondent that it has registered and used the disputed domain names since 2013 is not supported by the facts, neither has the Respondent presented its own evidence of when the disputed domain names came into its possession, a matter uniquely within its own knowledge, nor has it brought forth any evidence of its previous use of the disputed domain names.
ZAPA v. Gever, Sharon, WIPO D2024-2522, <zapa.com>, Denied
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in 2014, and submits as evidence a DomainTools printout of the WhoIs records for the disputed domain name for May 21, 2014 and June 18, 2014, where the former lists the Respondent as its registrant, while the latter lists as registrant a privacy service. The Panel notes that some random sampling of the Internet Archive shows that the disputed domain name seems to have redirected to a “gizmoz” site until 2010 but there are no records after that; this is not enough to support an inference that a change in content also followed a change in registrant. This however does not prove that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name on May 21, 2014, as there is no evidence that the registrant of the disputed domain name was a different person before that date. In view of this, there is no basis to conclude that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in 2014, and in the lack of any contrary evidence, the Panel accepts that the Respondent has been the registrant of the disputed domain name since 1996, when it was originally registered. Therefore, the Respondent’s conduct in 1996 has to be analyzed for the purposes of the finding whether the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith.
Moelis & Company v. Lei Jiang, WIPO D2024-1990, <moelist.com>, Denied
Notably, the Registrar does not state that the registration date which it provided refers to the point at which the disputed domain name was first registered in the name of the Respondent, and accordingly, the discrepancy in the Registrar-provided information may potentially be explicable as the date on which the disputed domain name was transferred to it from the previous registrar of record.
SMARTCATCH v. Domain, Administrator, NameFind LLC, WIPO D2024-0544<smartcatch.com>, Denied, RDNH
The Complainant should similarly have known that the “Updated Date” in a WhoIs search does not by itself establish a transfer of ownership (if there would be other evidence such as a change in content that may support such a claim, but that is not the case here), yet there is no evidence of any enquiries it may have conducted concerning the ownership history of the disputed domain name.
Lifeware SA v. Chris Smith, WIPO D2024-0556 <lifeware.com>, Denied, RDNH
The changing history of the use, or non-use, of the disputed domain name revealed by the Wayback Machine extracts included in the Complaint suggest that there may have been changes to the registrant of the disputed domain name over time. That conclusion, however, is really a matter of speculation. There is not sufficient evidence before the Panel to conclude that the current registrant was not the original registrant or, if the Respondent was not the original registrant, when the Respondent became the registrant.
Fieldd Pty Ltd v. Jessica Duarte, WIPO D2022-4980 <fieldd.com>, 3-member, Denied with dissenting opinion
Majority:
Complainant has not brought forth evidence that there was any break in the ownership continually held by the same named organization from 2014 to mid-2022. There is no allegation that the registration of the disputed domain name had lapsed during that time. The Panel does not find the dissolution of the Fieldd Software Service L.L.C. entity in 2017 extinguished domain name rights.
Dissent:
It is not claimed that the registration of the Domain Name by Fieldd Software L.L.C in about May 2014 was in bad faith. It was clearly not. But the registration back into the name of Ms Duarte some time after June 2022 is potentially different and the exact timing of that change in registration details is potentially important.
Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Richard Blair, WIPO D2022-1570, <lambo.com>, 3-member, Transfer with dissenting opinion
The Domain Report attached to the Complainant’s supplemental filing does, in fact, establish from historical WhoIs data, that, until February 28, 2018, the disputed domain name was registered in the name of a John F Lambeth. The date that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name is relevant to his allegation of delay on the part of the Complainant in bringing these proceedings against him. As the change of registrant details in 2018, from the original registrant, was not evident from either the WhoIs search appended to the Complaint nor the registrant verification information provided by the Registrar and communicated to the Complainant by the Center on May 3, 2022, the Complainant could not have anticipated that the Respondent would make such an assertion. It is therefore helpful for the factual position in this respect to be clarified, particularly when the Respondent has not stated in his Response the date on which he acquired the disputed domain name.