finds that the Respondent 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

services Nonetheless the passive holding of disputed domain names under these circumstances constitutes bad faith use Express Scripts Inc v Windgather Investments Ltd / Mr Cartwright WIPO Case No D2007-0267 transferring express-scrips.com

fact that Respondent may be passively holding the Domain Name can still be characterized as bad faith use Intel Corporation v The Pentium Group WIPO Case No D2009-0273 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

are satisfied when there is passive holding WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 sets out the Consensus View as follows 3.2 Can there be use in bad faith when the domain name

under the Policy that passive holding of a domain name is in violation of the Policy and constitutes bad faith Several decisions has already been rendered against the Respondent e.g Sanofi v Christopher Gill / Domain Privacy Service FBO

finally recalls that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use and argues that the Respondent past use of the disputed domain

the Disputed Domain Name 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

circumstances the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use Based on the evidence that was presented to the Panel including the use of the Complainant trademark in the disputed domain name

domain name that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name is evidence of bad faith and that Respondent does not own a trademark or other intellectual property rights in the disputed domain name and has not used the domain name in connection

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 the respondent is acting in bad faith see WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2

further contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in the circumstances of this case involves bad faith use In this respect it asserts that it is not possible to imagine any plausible future active use of

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 passive holding of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Given the notoriety of Complainant Trade Mark and Respondent failure to even claim any good faith use of the Domain Names the Panel

URS to display a generic holding page is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith Respondent s passive holding or parking of

Panel finds that Respondent passive holding of the intensa-sanpaolo.com intensa-sanpaolo.net and intensa-sanpaolo.org disputed domain names amounts to bad faith See Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 finding

submits that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of registration and use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant further contends

use the contested domain name Passive holding or non-use of a domain name is evidence of a lack of legitimate rights in the domain name Therefore the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2 URS 1.2.6.3 The domain name s

PPC revenues even as a holding position before resale is not illegitimate per se Whether or not there exists a right or legitimate interest must be determined in context including a consideration of the domain name in question the way the

Complainants state that this passive holding by the Respondent is also evidence of use in bad faith because 1 the Respondent has already used similar domains incorporating the Complainants trademarks to direct to an online pharmacy in bad faith 2

s inactive use called passive holding of the sag.party domain name for what appears to be all of the time following its registration demonstrates under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii its bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name

website is currently inactive passive holding can still constitute an act of bad faith and any use of the disputed domain name would constitute passing off and/or trademark infringement B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s