inactive which constitutes a passive holding Furthermore the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is engaged in domain name squatting namely intentionally purchasing generic top-level domains gTLD containing third party trade marks to block

website the Panel notes that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The following factors were also considered by the Panel as indicative of bad faith

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding 。 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主张，� � 立即将被投诉人注册并正在使� �的争议域名转移给投诉人。理� �如下：

and the disputed domain name Passive holding of the disputed domain name under the circumstances of this dispute falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith The lack of use of the disputed domain name particularly close to

iii of the Policy The current passive holding by the Respondent of the disputed domain name is to be considered in the context of section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 which explains that f rom the inception of the UDRP panelists have found that the

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark and iv the implausibility of any

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

was registered and is being passively used in bad faith by the Respondent The factors which are normally taken into account for a finding of bad faith passive holding are listed in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 as follows i the degree of

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

the other hand a respondent s passive holding of a domain name in the absence of a right to or legitimate interest in said domain name can constitute bad faith In such scenario panels have to analyze the circumstances of each case to determine

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Furthermore the Complaint proved that an email server has been configured on the Domain Name and that a serious risk exists that the Respondent may be engaged in a

Finally inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615 Société pour

of bad faith under the passive holding principles which are laid out in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Thus the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith Rights The

s CEO Under the doctrine of passive holding the fact that the Domain Name does not resolve to an active website does not prevent a finding of bad faith See Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third

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

the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar

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

WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding and explains that 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

WIPO Overview 3.0 The current passive holding of the disputed domain name would not change the Panel s findings above Passive holding can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith Passive holding of a domain name may