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 offered to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant for the amount exceeding the registration

domain name transitioned to a passive holding Respondent therefore registered the disputed domain name in an intentional attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with

�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�

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to

regard the Panel notes that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith In the Panel's view the above facts confirm that the domain name is used to intentionally attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the

at Attached Ex 3 Inactive or passive holding also supports a finding of bad faith use See Pirelli & C.S.P.A v Tabriz FA 9211798 Forum Apr 12 2007 holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name for over seven months constitutes bad faith

and that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name Finally the Complainant states that it has sent a notification via e-mail to the Respondent stating that the BETONSA trademark belongs to it and necessary legal action would

Case No D2000-0270 Secondly 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

of the view that the current passive holding of the disputed domain name under the circumstances does not prevent the Panel s finding that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith The evidence on record strongly

The Complainant states that passive holding of a domain name is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and that the Respondent is making an illegitimate and commercial use of the disputed domain name The Complainant states that the disputed

PANEL DECISION Taylor Wimpey Holdings Limited and Taylor Wimpey PLC v Annette Johnson Tangerineuk Case No D2016-2116 1 The Parties The Complainants are Taylor Wimpey Holdings Limited and Taylor Wimpey PLC of High Wycombe the United Kingdom of

Panel finds such use akin to passive holding under the circumstances While passive holding of a domain name does not always result in a finding of bad faith use the Panel considers that in the circumstances such a finding is appropriate for the

domain name followed by its passive holding when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately can amount to bad faith quoting e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 B Respondent The Respondent did

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not prevent for finding bad faith Moreover examining all the circumstances of the case the Panel determines that the Respondent is acting in bad faith on the grounds that the Complainant trademarks

also of the opinion that the passive holding of the disputed domain name which does resolve to an inactive website constitutes a factor in finding bad faith registration As further evidence of bad faith use the Complainant also mentions that the

the domain name Respondent s passive holding of the domain name is not a legitimate or bona fide use and that Complainant s MORGAN STANLEY marks are so well­-known that the only plausible inference that can be derived from Respondent s

Finding for Complainant The passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark

referring to error pages The passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the Disputed Domain Names by Respondents that would be legitimate and not

the domain name Respondent s passive holding of the domain name is not a legitimate or bona fide use and that Complainant s MORGAN STANLEY marks are so well­known that the only plausible inference that can be derived from Respondent s

certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name can constitute evidence of bad faith The mere holding of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark belonging to someone else can in certain circumstances be