fair use Rather Respondent is passively holding the domain names by not making an active use of the resolving webpages Respondent has registered and is using the domain names in bad faith Respondent is passively holding two confusingly similar

Complainant mark Registrant s passive holding of the domain name serves yet another evidence of bad faith FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it

DECISION Volvo Trademark Holding AB v Peter Backe Case No D2017-0666 1 The Parties The Complainant is Volvo Trademark Holding AB of Gothenburg Sweden represented by Wallberg IP Advice Denmark The Respondent is Peter Backe of Hong Kong China 2

states that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant's widely-known trade mark is in bad faith The Complainant therefore contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by

EMVCo LLC c/o Visa Holdings v Domain Administrator / China Capital Investment Limited Claim Number FA1705001732580 PARTIES Complainant is EMVCo LLC c/o Visa Holdings Complainant represented by Patchen M Haggerty of Perkins Coie LLP

not actively used but merely passively held does not obstruct a finding of bad faith use under the Policy since as in the present case such passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use There is consensus

webpage that is tantamount to passive holding of the disputed domain name This kind of activity may constitute evidence of bad faith use as per the consensus view of paragraph 3.2 of WIPO Overview 2.0 Similarly the fact that Respondent selected

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 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

specifically the mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith v Given the Respondent s conduct it is also not making any genuine legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name and is in fact making unfair

registration and use and/or passive holding and having been registered and used in bad faith no good faith future use is possible See Complaint Explanatory Text Further Complainant notes The disputed domain name was the subject of a prior URS and

business of a competitor The passive holding of a domain name can also constitute bad faith use especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a

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

registration and use and/or passive holding and having been registered and used in bad faith no good faith future use is possible See Complaint Explanatory Text The Examiner finds that Respondent purchased and/or registered and passively held the

FA 95095 Forum July 31 2000 holding that Respondent s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true see also Talk City Inc v Robertson D2000-0009 WIPO Feb 29 2000 In the absence

s software products Passive holding of domain names can be considered as bad faith use of them The Respondent did not reply to a number of efforts made in 2011 by the Complainant to contact him about the disputed domain names The

�被投诉人被动持有（ passive holding ）。 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 争议域名与投诉人的商标家乐福相同或混淆性相似。争议域名完全包含了商标家乐福。加以通� �顶级域名（ gTLD

�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，投诉人在美国持续使� � Philip Morris 的名称已超过百年，通过其长时间的宣传�'�使� �， Philip Morris

Although the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain names passive holding can still constitute bad faith use under the particular circumstances See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The

inactive may be considered as passive holding of the disputed domain name which it adds may be interpreted as bad faith registration and use in terms of the Policy B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions 6