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

alleges that the Respondent s passive holding is sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use The prevailing view however is that passive holding alone is not evidence of either good or bad faith As one panel stated the principle

This may be considered a passive holding of the disputed domain name which in many of previous UDRP decisions has been held tantamount to use in bad faith By way of example we may mention the decision given in FEIYUE v Asís Mouhmouh WIPO Case

submits that the concept of passive holding of a domain name may apply even in the event of sporadic use or the mere parking by a third party of a domain name as according to the Complainant happens in the case at hand The Complainant explains

available page Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name for over ten years evidences a lack of legitimate rights Respondent must have known when it selected the Domain Name that the public would associate it with Complainant and

of doing otherwise while passive holding under the appropriate circumstances can fall within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith particularly where the domain name in question contains a well-known trademark The Complainant

the Domain Name However such passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel also notes that Respondent undeveloped use of the website at the Domain Name which incorporates

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

lack of use is tantamount to passive holding which satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith by a Respondent B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 争议域名与投诉人享有权利的商标混淆� �相似� �在美国� 利与商标� 的主注册簿中，投诉人为以上MARLBORO商标的注册� 有人�

use arising from inaction and passive holding based on the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant notes that the only use to which the Respondent claims that it intends to put the

circumstances the Respondent 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

has not raised an argument of passive holding nor indeed provided the factual support for such an argument to succeed were it argued The trademark is not well known There is no claim to a common law reputation in the trademark There is no evidence

of the Respondent Instead passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital WIPO

Panel must answer is whether passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent prevents finding of the bad faith in this case Taking into consideration all the circumstances of this case this Panel holds that passive holding of the

the principle of so-called passive holding first laid out in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 applied countless times since by UDRP panelists The trade mark at issue in these proceedings is shown to be

�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混淆�

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Notwithstanding that from the record it appears that the disputed domain name is held passively by the Respondent a finding of bad faith is not precluded

and the Respondent s passive holding the Disputed Domain Name amounted to registration and use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language Pursuant to

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 2.0 paragraph 3.2