registration followed by a passive holding where there is no way in which a domain name could be used legitimately amount to use in bad faith The Complainant asserts that the fact that the Respondent has registered 8 domain names on the

Domain Name Respondent is passively holding all of the Domain Names The Domain Name facebookforanimal.com resolves to a social network website offering services similar to those of Complainants Furthermore Respondent s registration of a large

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph4 a iii of the Policy See also D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v

it is well-established that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent finding of bad faith use12 where any good faith use to which the D omain N ame may be put 13 is implausible Taken the Respondent s previous use of the Domain Name and

be false However the Telstra holding does not turn on the use of false contact information rather the central holding of that case is that passive holding of a well-known mark can itself suffice to establish bad faith registration and use See e.g

to inactive websites The passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Based on the above facts it is implausible to contemplate of any

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Therefore the fact that the disputed domain name redirects to a 404-error would not prevent this Panel s finding of bad faith use By not submitting a Response the Respondent offered no information on

corroborated by the non-use passive holding of the disputed domain name shows the intention of the Respondent to confuse Internet users seeking or expecting the Complainant Thus by registering and not using the disputed domain name the Respondent

that the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name centraleachatcarrefour.com satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the UDRP Accordingly the Complainant has satisfied the third element of UDRP 7 Decision For the foregoing

an analysis for bad faith and passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name has often been held to be evidence of bad faith VideoLink Inc v Xantech Corporation FA1503001608735 Forum May 12 2015 Failure to actively use a domain name is

Name not least as due to the passive holding of the Domain Name with no real active website Alternatively even if this was not one of the reasons behind the Respondent's registration and use of the Domain Name the examples of bad faith

alter this conclusion since passive holding of a domain name containing a famous trademark especially in conjunction with the provision of false WhoIs information can still constitute bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding 。本程序开始之时，争议域名指向的网站上刊登着与�'春相关的正能量文章。目前，争议域名指向的网站上刊登着佛教心经。 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy and 15 of the

found that inactive use or passive holding of the disputed domain name by a respondent permits the inference that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names Here Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed

s JLL mark and cites the passive holding doctrine as described in WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 because the Domain Name has not been used for an active website and no legitimate use can be foreseen In the Panel s view the Domain Name has in

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In view of the above the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy and