2016 In addition the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests See e.g CLK Bogazici Elektrik Perakende Satis A.S / CLK Enerji Yatirim Anonim Sirketi v Ahmet Ozturk WIPO Case No

phishing attack The current passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith The Respondent failure to respond to the Complainant cease-and-desist letter is further evidence of bad faith The Complainant asks for the disputed

to any active website s The passive holding of the disputed domain name registrations may nevertheless be sufficient to constitute bad faith use taking into consideration the overall context of the Respondent s behavior In this case the

active web site i.e has been passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding especially in cases of domain name

event the Panel finds that passive holding of the disputed domain names or use of the disputed domain names to resolve to parking pages with links to sponsored third-party sites also amount to use in bad faith Thus the Panel concludes that the

the Respondent s apparent passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith registration and use in the circumstances of this case The Complainant provides evidence that email servers have been activated for

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include that no response to the complaint has been filed

those names and that the passive holding of the disputed domain names by the Respondent does not prevent a finding of bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainants also submit that the

active use of the domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

submits that the Respondent s passive holding constitutes bad faith use of the disputed domain name As also established in a number of previous UDRP cases as of the leading case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

�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，� � 立即将争议域名转移给投诉人，理� �如下 投诉人认为，争议域名包含了投诉人在先注册并已经广泛使�

it has been recognized that passive holding of domain names corresponding to famous trade marks can be considered bad faith registration in cases of inactive use It says that simply pointing the first disputed domain name to the website of its

the Panel finds that the passive holding of Domain Names amounts to use in bad faith Accordingly the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy 7 Decision For

�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，� � 立即将争议域名转移给投诉人，理� �如下： 投诉人已在美国持续使� �Philip Morris名称� �产�'�� � �其产�

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

Domain Names have been passively held since then either hosting no content or merely reflect a holding page Panels previously held that Respondent s inactive use or passive holding of a disputed domain name is demonstrative of Respondent s

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

in bad faith notably due to passive holding as they are parked In addition the Complainant found evidence on the Internet which would demonstrate that the Respondent might have been a victim of identity theft and that the disputed domain names

of the trademark DIADORA Passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith A panel must consider all of the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of cumulative

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