to an active page Such passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a bad faith finding in this case In accordance with the evidence provided by the Complainant in the present proceeding the Panel does not envisage any use of

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

rightly contends that the passive holding of a disputed domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4 a iii Previous UDRP panels indeed held that bad faith can be found where respondent

this behavior amounts to a passive holding constituting bad faith Decision For all the reasons stated above the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed domain name s are to be HRBOLLOREMAIL.COM Transferred to Complainant Panellists Name Dr

which explains the concept of passive holding in bad faith The Panel considers that the disputed domain name motul.xyz constitutes a passive holding in bad faith in the circumstances outlined above in particular the fact that it consists of the

domain names in typical passive holding cases where the domain names convey a neutral message that may not on its own give rise to an inference of bad faith See e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

�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：

the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use for purposes of the Policy United Computer Products Co Inc v Domain Name Proxy Inc Domain Name Proxy Inc Domain Name Proxy Inc Domain Name Proxy Inc

present case the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name indicates bad faith registration and use In this regard the Complainant submits in particular that i the Complainant s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known

present case the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name indicates bad faith registration and use In this regard the Complainant submits in particular that i the Complainant s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known

website of Respondent is a passive one with no bona fide goods/services on offer therein and the same has been registered with a view to draw association and mileage from the goodwill and reputation of Complainant and to redirect consumers who

whatsoever so-called passive holding Many UDRP panels have recognized that the mere registration of a domain name even one that is comprised of a confirmed dictionary word or phrase may not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests

names have not been used the passive holding of a domain name amounts to use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 telstra.org B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's

contact the trademark 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

submits that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name since the date of its suspension by the registrar is not a bar to a finding of bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The

is the Complainant and is now passively holding the disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith because i the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant

name has not been used the passive holding of a domain name amounts to bad faith use Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 telstra.org Further the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name

that the Domain Names are passively held and as such have not been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services Such passive holding has not been deemed sufficient to establish legitimate interests or bona fide use in prior

have long established that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Before the Center instituted this proceeding Complainant and

contact the trademark 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