faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 WIPO Overview 3.0 Therefore on the balance of probabilities taking into consideration all cumulative circumstances of this case the Panel considers that the disputed domain name was very

s non-use and apparent passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the overall circumstances of the case particularly given the distinctiveness and renown of the Complainant s FACEBOOK mark and its

the disputed domain names passively It has long been generally held in previous UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without obvious actual or contemplated good faith use does not

faith under the doctrine of passive holding B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Based on article 2.1 of the Regulations a claim to transfer a domain name must meet three cumulative

domain name and is similar to passive holding There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name as contemplated by paragraph 4 c ii of the Policy Despite the disputed domain name being registered

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding 。 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人

evidence from the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name does not constitute legitimate noncommercial or fair use Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v Wreaks Communications Group WIPO Case No D2006-0483

The Respondent s further passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith considering that i the Complainant is very well known in both in the United Kingdom and beyond and its trademark has been used for many years prior to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Panel finds so under the circumstances of this case The Panel has reviewed all elements of this case and in particular the confusing similarity of the disputed

or fair use This is passive holding which is bad faith per se B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name consists of the

decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use In addition Complainant submits that the risk of wrongful

contents and thus being passively held Under certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the

connected to any web site The passive holding of the disputed domain name has to be considered a use in bad faith «The very act of having acquired the domain name raises the probability of Respondent using it in a manner that is contrary to

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding 。根据先前的UDRP案例，被动持有争议域名不会阻碍� 家组根据所有的证据认定被投诉人恶意使� �争议域名。参见WIPO Overview

domain name in bad faith by passively holding it without a legitimate purpose B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4 a of the Policy in order to succeed a

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or

on this server Inactive or passive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy � 4 c i or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy � 4 c iii Here

is effectively engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name within the terms originally established by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The panel in Telstra noted that the question as to which

decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use see in this regard Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

the at-issue domain name passively Respondent's passive holding of the confusingly similar morganstanleyclientauth.com domain name creates confusion as to the sponsorship of the domain name and is thereby disruptive to Complainant's business