and Respondent subsequent passive holding of the disputed domain name are likewise proof of bad faith registration and use by Respondent B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Under

finds that the Respondent passive holding of the Domain Name for 18 years amounts to bad faith use given the overall circumstances of this case in particular the nature of the Domain Name itself which consists of an exact match of the

to well established case law passive holding of a domain name deliberately incorporating a well known mark without a plausible legitimate use of the domain name amounts to bad faith registration and use in accordance with paragraph 4 b of the

only display a blank page passive holding In the Complainant's view the awareness of the Respondent regarding the trademark PRADAXA at the time of the disputed domain name registration and the passive holding of the domain name by the

According to the Panel 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 Respondent that would be legitimate and not

�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� �

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition paragraph 3.2 Given that the Complainant s BAIDU marks are well-known in

�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� �

4 a i See Janus International Holding Co v Scott Rademacher WIPO Case No D2002-0201 finding that the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive The

4 a i See Janus International Holding Co v Scott Rademacher WIPO Case No D2002-0201 finding that the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive The

even in the event of such passive holding the circumstances for such a finding are not present here Notably for example it is unclear whether the KGP Trademark enjoys a strong reputation outside of the United States the only country for which

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith for the purpose of the Policy See paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 The Panel accordingly finds that paragraph 4

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

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see Sanofi Genzyme Corporation v Scott Scanlon / Registration Private Domains By Proxy LLC supra Sanofi Genzyme Corporation v Domain Privacy supra

of filing the Complaint was passively held Passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra The Panel also notes the default of the

established that so-called passive-holding of a domain name can be considered as proof of bad faith According to Complainant it has never licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its Trademarks in any way and Complainant has not

in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent replied to the Complaint through emails to the Center on June 23 2016

Complainant contends that the passive holding by the Respondent of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes a bad faith use because the Respondent registered it without intent to use it but only to harm the Complainant Indeed the only purpose of the

No D2009-1529 noting that passive holding of a disputed domain name does not constitute a legitimate use of such a domain name that would give rise to a legitimate right or interest in the name Third the Complainant asserts that the Respondent

webpage that is tantamount to passive holding of the disputed domain name This kind of activity may constitute evidence of bad faith use as per the consensus view of paragraph 3.2 of WIPO Overview 2.0 The following reasons also contribute to a