According to the Panel the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the Disputed Domain Name by Respondent that would be legitimate and not infringing

That a domain name is passively held does not prejudge a legitimate use of that domain name Instead such passive holding is an indicator of bad faith Passive use can be use in bad faith when considering the circumstances of the case In this

the Respondent has been passively holding the Disputed Domain Name for over 10 years this must mean that the Respondent intends to resell it possibly to the Complainant for a profit The Complainant also states that the Respondent has engaged

domain name for years and the passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy The Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed

that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name in order to block the Complainant The Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services via the disputed domain name Instead it is creating a likelihood of

resolve to an active webpage Passive holding of a domain name can in some circumstances amount to use in bad faith This is so in a case like the one at issue where the disputed domain name includes a third party's trademark and the registration of

trademark and subsequent passive holding of such a domain thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain is viewed by the Examiner as bad faith Moreover by choosing a word blog as the gTLD the Respondent has already

this case is a classic passive holding case as outlined in the decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Given that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant name and trademarks the

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views

has no legitimate interest in passively holding the domain or in setting up an email account to send and receive emails from a TevaPharmaceuticals.xyz mail account on the disputed domain as it is likely to be used only to cause confusion and

name in bad faith ii that the passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith use and iii that there is no conceivable non-infringing use that he could make of the disputed domain name The disputed domain name was not registered

the Complainant states that passive holding of a domain name can also be considered bad faith use under certain circumstances as is the case here B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings

the Complainant action Passive holding of a domain name can also be an evidence of bad faith use See for example Cetera Financial Holdings Inc v Whois Privacy Protection Service WIPO Case No D2013-1831 Having considered the above the Panel

the 18 federations CIC is a holding company and network bank in the Paris region and comprises 5 regional banks and subsidiaries that together provide various financial business lines and insurance both in France and globally through more than

and that the continued holding of the Domain Names is in bad faith This is consistent with the holding in Pfizer Inc v Legal Dept Barry McMahon and Pfizer ltd Sys Admin WIPO Case No D2013-2046 It has been held in previous UDRP decisions that

�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�

is used in good faith Indeed passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith Previous Panels have already considered that passive holding of a disputed domain name can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii and that in such cases

but the Complainant submits passive holding of a domain name can also be considered bad faith use under certain circumstances B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or

of the Policy Respondent s passive holding of a domain name containing Complainant s entire YULEX mark absent any indication of a plausible good faith use of the domain name and given the fact that Respond admits to Complainant s contentions of