Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names is evidence of bad faith See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the

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

after its registration such passive holding here constitutes bad faith use under the precedent set by the Telstra case and its progeny When on August 23 2016 the Panel visited the site to which the disputed domain name resolved he found a site

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see Sanofi Genzyme Corporation v Domain Privacy supra Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Whois Agent Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc / Jean-Paul Clozel

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith registration and use when inter alia it is difficult to imagine any conceivable future use of the domain name that would be legitimate and would not infringe a

is inactive The Respondent is holding the disputed domain name passively and such passive holding is deemed a bad faith indicator Furthermore the Respondent is the registrant of at least 68 other domain names Many of them contain third parties

domain name now points to a holding page the Complainant asserts and relies on the finding in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2003-0003 that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration

by Complainant 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

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

further appears to be passively holding the disputed domain name Pursuant to paragraph 4 c of the Policy a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following i before

further appears to be passively holding the disputed domain name Pursuant to paragraph 4 c of the Policy a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following i before

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 an email to the Center in which the

active website characterizing passive holding The Complainant has a well-known and highly distinctive trademark It is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name independently of the Complainant s trademark The Respondent

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Whois Agent Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc / Jean-Paul Clozel WIPO Case No D2016-0068 Telstra Corporation Limited

�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，� � 立即将被投诉人注册并正在使� �的争议域名转移给投诉人� �理� �如下：

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith paragraph 3.2 WIPO Overview 2.0 The WIPO Overview 2.0 further states t he panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the

until March 2016 Respondent s passive holding coupled with the Respondent s knowledge of Complainant s trademark rights constitutes bad faith use and registration See Beat the Bookstore LLC v May Enterprise Case No 0510000589501 NAF Dec 19 2005

�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，� � 立即将被投诉人注册并正在使� �的争议域名转移给投诉人� �理� �如下：

of preventing others 6 t he passive holding of a domain name amounts to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would be legitimate and not infringing Complainant s

be inferred from Respondent s passive holding of the subject domain name Several factors support this inference 1 the Infringing Domains are identical to a widely known trademark 2 Respondent registered the Infringing Domains despite knowledge of