The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See Telstra Corporation Limited v

commercial gain Respondent s passive holding and lack of active use of the domain name evinces its bad faith in registering and using the domain name Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights to the ALTA MOTORS mark when it registered the

making this an example of passive holding Passive holding is not itself evidence of either good or bad faith but must be interpreted in the context of all of the circumstances of the case see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

making this an example of passive holding Passive holding is not itself evidence of either good or bad faith but must be interpreted in the context of all of the circumstances of the case see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

�被投诉人被动持有（ passive holding ）� � 此外，据投诉人提交的证据，被投诉人于2016年6月也注册了域名 lufthansa.store � � staralliance.store 及 virgin-atlantic.store � �统� 快� �暂停系统（ Uniform Rapid

explanation is akin to passive holding The Panel finds that such use of the disputed domain name does not avoid a finding of bad faith under the present circumstances Moreover the registration of the disputed domain name which is identical

active web site i.e have been passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding especially in cases of domain name

identity The Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings To succeed the Complainant must

�被投诉人被动持有（ passive holding ）� � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 两个投诉人首先主张争议域名与两个投诉人商标混淆� �相似� �争议域名均为要素 ge 或 gec （与第二投诉人的商标相同）�

this amounts to at best a passive holding at worst a disguised way of signaling that the relevant domain names are indeed for sale Whether one or the other is of little consequence because the Respondent has acquired domain names that

it has been acknowledged that passive holding may amount to the domain name being used in bad faith Finally the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent on September 9 2016 and later a reminder asking the Respondent to disable

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does amount to acting in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been

resolves to an inactive page passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC v Andrea Denise Dinoia WIPO Case No D2011-0421 In Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Mashmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the

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

The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See Telstra Corporation Limited v

further contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain name combined with circumstances such as the Complainant s well-known Trademarks and bad faith registration constitutes bad faith use The Complainant also submits that the active

the Respondent engages in passive holding of the Domain Name which satisfies in the context of the case the requirements as clarified in the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and

it is well established that passive holding of a domain name could amount to bad faith under certain circumstances as decided i.a in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the case at hand in view of the

panel held The concept of passive holding typically implies complete inaction on the part of the Respondent characterize The Complainant s submission however is that this may be assimilated with passive holding because the website is no more

In this context Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name evidences bad faith registration and use As such the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration The Panel finally finds that Respondent had