finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a bad faith finding The conduct described above falls squarely within paragraph 4 b i and ii of the Policy and accordingly the Panel concludes that 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

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to disrupt Complainant s business

DECISION Swissquote Group Holding S.A v Yang Shi Yan Case No D2017-0211 1 The Parties The Complainant is Swissquote Group Holding S.A of Gland Switzerland represented by Nameshield France The Respondent is Yang Shi Yan of Fushan Guangdong China

Moreover the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a bad faith finding under the circumstances The conduct described above falls within paragraph 4 b of the Policy and accordingly the Panel concludes that the

domain name Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name zoetis-uk.com is further evidence that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith See Marsh Supermarkets Company LLC formerly known as Marsh Supermarkets

being used in good faith The passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith In such case all surrounding circumstances of the Respondent s behaviour have to be examined A passive holding of a domain name may be considered as being made

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding 。 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主张根据中国消费大众的理解， 吉尼斯 标记指投诉人及其产� ��'�服务，� 均与破纪录成绩相关。

Inc Charter Communications Holding Company LLC and Charter Communications Operating LLC v Perfect Privacy LLC / Sheri K Corwin Case No D2017-0040 1 The Parties Complainants are Charter Communications Inc Charter Communications Holding Company

Case No D2000-0003 in which passive holding of a domain name was found in the circumstances of that case to amount to bad faith use of it Moreover it says that the disputed domain name was registered for the purpose of attracting for commercial

it is currently inactive passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith when the circumstances in the Respondent s behavior indicate the absence of bona fide use The disputed domain name has been previously used to direct Internet

Finally with reference to the passive holding of the disputed domain name given the similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant s widely known MARLBORO trademark and in light of the Complainant s long standing use of the same the

to previous UDRP cases the passive holding does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith This Panel finds that the circumstances of this case match the factors set forth in the Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith paragraph 3.2 WIPO Overview 2.0 The WIPO Overview 2.0 further states The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the

According to the Panel the passive holding of the Disputed domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the Disputed domain name by the Respondent that would be legitimate and not

in bad faith The Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Names amounts to use of the Domain Names in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith The Panel thus finds that Respondent has acted in bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii by failing to make

WhoIs information having passively held the Domain Name with no sign of any bona fide commercial use or legitimate non commercial use Passive holding not replying to a cease and desist letter and providing false contact details is evidence of

contact the trademark holder passive holding The consensus view on that question is that panels have found that the apparent lack of so-called active use e.g to resolve to a website of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to

which it has been said that passively holding a domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services see for example Philip Morris USA Inc v Gabriel Hall WIPO Case No D2015-1779 The Complainant says also that the Respondent