faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Panel notes the presumption that the Respondent or a third party stands to profit or make a �commercial gain � from advertising revenue by such an arrangement trading

cases of so-called �passive holding � as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to bad

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

the Disputed Domain Name passively and having no content on its web page 2 the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 �The

cases of so-called �passive holding � as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to bad

trade marks It constitutes a passive holding in bad faith The Complainant �s �AEW UK � trade mark is well-known not only in France but also worldwide A Google search for the Complainant �s trade mark brings up over seven million results It is

faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 In the circumstances of this case where nine of the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith the Panel finds that fb-tv.xyz has also been registered

has ceased business Passive holding of a Domain Name is registration and use in bad faith Use of the Complainant s telephone number and the name of one of its employees in the phishing scam shows the Respondent has actual knowledge of the

PANEL DECISION Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A v Registration Private Domains By Proxy LLC / Marty Smith Case No D2019-0294 1 The Parties The Complainant is Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A of Pully Switzerland represented by Valea AB

names had been taken down and passive holding of these disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith use The conduct described above falls squarely within paragraph 4 b iv of the Policy and accordingly the Panel concludes that the

the principle that the passive holding of a domain name under appropriate circumstances can constitute use in bad faith The Panel finds that the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name which identically incorporates the

also contends that the passive holding of a domain name featuring well-known trademarks shows the bad faith of the Respondent B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings The

to make it resolve to a blank holding page featuring the phrase � �jigletoes.com is coming soon � The Complainant submits that in the circumstances this amounts to a passive holding in bad faith As noted at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO

contact the trade mark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative

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

domain names and such passive holding of domain names in which the registrant has absolutely no conceivable rights or interests has consistently been held to be use in bad faith Therefore the Panel holds that under the circumstances of this

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主张争议域名与投诉人享有权利的商标相同或混淆�

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Factors that have been considered relevant in applying this doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant �s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a

Complainant Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name containing an infringing trademark amounts to bad faith and is indicative of an intention to hold the Domain Name for some future activity that would be detrimental to Complainant 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