owned by Isetan Mitsukoshi Holding Ltd The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for the mark ISETANMITSUKOSHI For example Chinese trademark registration no 6597386 with the registration date of April 14 2010 Chinese

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith if an examination of all the circumstances of the case still indicates that Respondent is acting in bad faith indicative circumstances may be that

disputed domain name has been passively held And the current status of being a passive / inactive domain name does not remove the infringement as determined by many previous UDRP decisions stating that passive holding of a well-known trademark may

Complainant s reputation The passive holding by the Respondent of the disputed domain name leads to the conclusion of bad faith use in this case See Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The site has not been used

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人（及其前身）早于1883年就已� 始制� �并� � �Marlboro香烟� �投诉人认为� �过其多年宣传�'�使� �，该商标已广为人知� �

the Domain Name constitutes passive holding Pictet is not a dictionary word and has no meaning The Domain Name was registered in 2016 long after use and registration by the Complainant of the PICTET mark The use of banque in the Domain Name shows

regard were clear and the passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith when the overall circumstances of the case point to that conclusion Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

domain name groupamabank.com Passive holding of a domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests under the Policy Respondent is using the disputed domain name groopaama.com to resolve to a web page that creates an impression of

in bad faith The Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith In addition the Claimant has proven that the Respondent has used at least for some time the disputed domain name in attracting internet user s to content

the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use for purposes of the Policy see WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 For the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been

that according to precedent passive holding of the disputed domain name with no conceivable legitimate use by the Respondent is evidence of bad faith In an email to the Center dated October 21 2016 in the nature of a Supplemental Communication

faith Domain name non-use and passive holding may certainly lead to a finding of bad faith registration and use under a nonexclusive consideration of Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Complainant has provided evidence of Respondent s alleged inactive

domain name in dispute i.e passive holding is sufficient to demonstrate bad faith use in particular because of the reputation of the Complainant's trademark and the fact that it is not possible to conceive of any plausible good faith use of such

itself d the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name In particular the lack of any conceivable plausible actual or contemplated active use as noted in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

also contends that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith which in combination with evidence of hiding his identity behind a privacy service or proxy domain registrar and writing to the

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark 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 bad

is of the opinion that 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

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

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人（及其前身）早于1883年就已� 始制� �并� � �Marlboro香烟� �投诉人认为� �过其多年宣传�'�使� �，该商标已广为人知� �