the Panel finds that the passive holding of said inactive domain name constitutes use in bad faith pursuant to a well-established UDRP principle see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Accordingly the

that Respondent is engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith registration and use when it is difficult to imagine any conceivable future use of the domain name that would be legitimate and would not infringe a complainant

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

show that the Respondent s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith The following circumstances taken together with the passive holding of the disputed domain names establish on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain names

domain names is a GoDaddy holding page so just a passive holding of the disputed domain names without additional evidence of bad faith is not enough to meet the requirements of the Policy Respondent is a citizen of the United States and has

�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�

Case No D2000-0003 that the passive holding of a domain name by a respondent may amount to the respondent acting in bad faith Accordingly the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith 7 Decision For the

KwaSizabantu approach and holding that a respondent can disrupt the business of a competitor only if it offers goods or services that can compete with or rival the goods or services offered by the trademark owner The Panel finds Respondent s

to an active website The passive holding of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods under 4 c i nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under 4 c iii Bronco Wine Co v Midnight Wine

show that the respondent s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith However the Panel finds that the mere fact of and evidence for passive holding of the disputed domain name for more than 16 years various promotional activities for

of UDRP panelists is that passive holding of a disputed domain name may in certain circumstances be consistent with a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include the

number of decisions in which passively holding a domain name as a parked page with and without pay-per-click links has been found to be evidence of bad faith use Complainant also argues that because Respondent s website has a link that says Would

text in Japanese Parking or passive holding of a disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition paragraph 3.2 Here relevant in the Panel s consideration is

trademark holder so called passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith According to the consensus view summarized under paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview

site Hence the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name The consensus view among UDRP panels is that passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 The Panel must consider

Respondent registration and passive holding of the disputed domain name are in bad faith B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant contentions 7 Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4 a of the Policy notwithstanding Respondent

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use For the above-cited reasons the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith therefore

finds that the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use For the above-cited reasons the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith therefore

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph4 a iii of the Policy See also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an