to an inactive webpage Passive holding of a disputed domain name incorporating a third party well-known mark does not normally amount to a bona fide use It is well established that inaction or passive holding can in certain circumstances

and is using and/or passively holding the bloombergaiq.com domain in bad faith Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant s marks as Complainant has a strong reputation a high-profile presence in the financial and media

It also claims that the passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith use and that the lack of use of the disputed domain name combined to a proposal to sell the disputed domain name to the highest bidder is likely to cause

�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，� � 立即将争议域名转移给投诉人，理� �如下： 争议域名包含了投诉人在先注册并已经广泛使�

the registration followed by passive holding when there is no way in which the domain name could legitimately be used amounts to use in bad faith In the instant case the disputed domain name is so univocally and directly connected to the

WIPO Case No D2015-1728 Passive holding of the disputed domain name coupled with the fame of the Complainant s MICHELIN trademark does not avoid a bad faith finding It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of

positive actions but includes passive holding therefore the Domain Name is being used in bad faith see also ALDI GmbH & Co KG v Sadettin Kucuk supra This situation was addressed to many UDRP panels before and according to the WIPO Overview 2.0

Respondent s registration and passive holding of the disputed domain name in the circumstances of the present proceeding accounts to registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith Having examined all the circumstances of the case the

No D2000-0050 Volvo Trademark Holding AB v SC-RAD Inc WIPO Case No D2003-0601 Wal-Mart Stores Inc v Lars Stork WIPO Case No D2000-0628 America Online Inc v Dolphin@Heart WIPO Case No D2000-0713 AltaVista Company v S M A Inc WIPO Case No D2000-0927

�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：

and use in bad faith was the passive holding of the domain name following the well known approach in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The panel's conclusion was expressed as follows Although the matter is

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主张争议域名与投诉人享有权利的商标相同或混淆�

Respondent s registration and passive holding of the disputed domain names in the circumstances of the present proceeding accounts to registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith Having examined all the circumstances of the case

�被投诉人消极持有 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的争议域名转移给投诉人� �主要理� �如下：

American Century Proprietary Holdings Inc v Travis Martin FA 1262486 FORUM Jun 23 2009 Holding no rights or legitimate interests where domain name resolves to a parked website and Respondent presumably generates click-through fees from such use

that Respondent s inactive holding is representative of bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Inactive holding may indicate bad faith under a nonexclusive consideration of Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Am Broad Cos Inc v Sech FA 893427 Forum

UDRP decisions confirmed that passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use The Complainant also asserts that the sole further scope of

Complainant The Respondent is passively holding the Disputed Domain Name to cause confusion to consumers Consumers are likely to believe that the Respondent has a connection with the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

Overview 2.0 The concept of passive holding is not a free-standing type of bad faith nor does it dispense with the requirement for registration in bad faith As there is no registration in bad faith in this case the issue of passive holding does

them The Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of bad faith registration and use The Panel finds that based on the record the Complainant has demonstrated the Respondent s bad faith pursuant to