registered The Respondent is passively holding the Disputed Domain Name The Complainant submits that in this case that passive holding amounts to bad faith The Trade Mark has a strong reputation and is widely known and the Respondent has provided

be or is claimed to be held passively without any evident usage or purpose WIPO Case No D2011-0421 Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC v Andrea Denise Dinoia Previous Panels have already considered that passive holding of a disputed domain name

the Respondent is merely passively holding the disputed domain names As such the Respondent is not using any of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4 c i of the Policy or a

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 telstra.org Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 jupiterscasino.com Reviewing the totality of the

facts also fall close to the passive holding cases where a Panel cannot realistically identify a situation where use would be in good faith see WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 para 3.2 including its summary of the Telstra line of cases WIPO

mark The Respondent's holding the domain name threatens such a scam and constitutes a passive use of it in bad faith Decision For all the reasons stated above the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed domain name s are to be

found that the concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use or of the mere parking by a third party of a domain name as it happens in the current case To summarize the confusingly similar nature of the Domain Name to

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 holding that passive holding of the domain name could constitute use of the domain name in bad faith The Panel has already found that Respondent incorporated in the Domain Name two of Complainant s registered marks for

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

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding �.13 One of the factors applied to passive holding doctrine is �the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put �.14 Here the previous bad faith use of the Domain Name and

the disputed domain name as a passive holding cannot give rise to any legitimate rights or interests in that name on the part of the Respondent The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith

to more recently register and passively hold a domain name containing the Complainant's famous mark for an extended period of time The panel finds therefore that there has been passive holding of a domain name containing a famous mark namely the

together with inaction or passive holding may constitute bad faith use see for example WIPO case No D2000-0075 The Panel having taken into account the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant's trademark the fact that no response to

�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：

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 holding that passive holding of the domain name could constitute use of the domain name in bad faith The Panel has already found that Respondent incorporated in the Domain Name three of Complainant s registered marks

above Additionally the passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Pursuant to paragraph 4 a of the Policy the

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

and its related entity KCG IP Holdings LLC v RACHID JMEL / Awais Siddiqui / TRENT ORWIN / ANASTASIIA CHIPYSHEVA / THE WORLD MARKETING GLOBAL LTD Claim Number FA1710001753574 PARTIES Complainant is Citadel LLC and its related entity KCG IP Holdings

DECISION McKenzie Global Holdings Limited v Paul Strube Case No D2017-1857 1 The Parties The Complainant is McKenzie Global Holdings Limited of Paraparaumu New Zealand represented by Zone Law Limited New Zealand The Respondent is Paul Strube