circumstances so-called passive holding can amount to use in bad faith In line with the principles first set out in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 and applied consistently by UDRP

�被投诉人被动持有（ passive holding ）。 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 争议域名与投诉人拥有权利的商标相同。除 top 后缀，争议域名与投诉人的NEDBANK商标相同。

faith under the doctrine of passive holding but that the totality of the circumstances in each case is to be looked at including factors such as the degree of Complainant s trademark reputation the failure of Respondent to submit a response or

of this case the current passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of bad faith For the reasons above the Respondent's conduct has to be considered in this Panel's view as bad faith registration and use of the disputed

the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 As such the Panel holds that

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

Complainant s SULLCROM mark Passive holding of a domain name containing a well known mark is bad faith in itself Until the Complaint was filed the Domain Name was held by a privacy service After it was filed the registrant was changed to SULLIVAN

submits that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith registration and use given the Respondent's anticipated failure to provide evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use 2 B

the Policy to the effect that passive holding of a domain name might amount to bad faith use In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the panel set out circumstances in which such a finding might be made In

its competitors Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name without any other use or intended use has been made i for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business and ii in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its

an active website and such passive does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services Complainant further avers that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and that passive use is not a legitimate noncommercial

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

that the Respondent s initial passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith and that the Respondent s subsequent redirecting of the disputed domain names to the www.sanofi.blog website following the submission of the

in many UDRP decisions that passive holding of a domain name under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions 6

the Respondent is making passive holding of the domain name and at the same time deprive the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in the domain name This can be considered has passive retention   No administratively compliant Response

in many UDRP cases that passive holding of a domain name under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith The Complainant has sent a cease and desist letter to the subject registrant

it is well established that passive holding i.e the incorporation of a famous trademark into a domain name coupled with an inactive website may be evidence of bad faith registration and use The Complainant also states that the Respondent has

domain name was registered Passive holding of the disputed domain name to which the Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests suggests it is using the disputed domain name in bad faith The Respondent also was made aware of 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

Respondent conduct amounts to passive holding of the disputed domain name Passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith when considering other circumstances for instance a complainant having a well-known trade mark and there being no