domain name While the passive holding of the disputed domain name and its sudden activation in October 2016 does indeed raise some doubts as to the legitimacy of the website the Panel finds it nevertheless difficult to consider that the

the numerous UDRP decisions holding as such that the Complainant MARLBORO trademark is a famous trademark The Respondent has failed to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name As indicated above the website resolves to

case to make a finding of passive holding in bad faith The Panel notes also that there is no evidence of any of the registrants of the disputed domain name ever having made an attempt to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainants or to a

found that the concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use or of the mere parking by a third party of a domain name as it happens in the current case See as an example WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 In the WIPO Case

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

the question of whether the passive holding of a domain name could constitute bad faith Paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 states that panels have found that the

showing the contrary the passive holding of a domain name cannot constitute a legitimate noncommercial fair use In this case the Respondent did not prove to have undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in

The Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name which itself can be considered as a bad faith use of a domain name Moreover the Respondent ignored the cease and desist letter send by the Complainant which the Examiner found to be a

the Panel finds that the passive holding of said disputed domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 The panel notes the disputed domain name now resolves to a website apparently selling the

active use of the domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Polaroid Corporation v Jay Strommen WIPO Case

website or non use or passive holding An inactive website/non use/passive holding have no relevance in determining whether the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name If anything an inactive website/non

use Thus the Respondent is holding the disputed domain name passively It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without any actual or contemplated good

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 view of the Respondent registration

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � �该裁决作出时，争议域名指向的网站的内容发� �了� 更，该网站� �示 该域名出� �，若� 购此域名请到西部数码平台购买 ；该网站� �示相关网站的�

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The UDRP panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be

UDRP panels indicated that passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prejudge a legitimate use and rather such passive holding is deemed a bad faith indicator Therefore the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name is

resolve to any active website passive holding does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith and can in fact constitute use in bad faith as recognized by the Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The relevant

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Each UDRP panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith See Jupiters Limited v Aaron

also refers to decisions on passive holding of a domain name when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately The Complainant concludes it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the Domain

trademark and subsequent passive holding of such a domain thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain constitute bad faith The Respondent has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure