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

The Respondent s now passive holding of the disputed domain name does not alter the Panel s finding in this regard In light of this the Panel decides that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith and the third element

to a parking page a form of passive holding which does not typically vest rights or constitute evidence of legitimate interests The disputed domain name bhpbillitonlimited.xyz points to an apparent online gambling site and in this case as well

generic nor descriptive 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

of the Policy despite such passive holding based on the totality of the circumstances See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Further the Panel considers the Respondent �s use of the name and address of the

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 not exhaustive the complainant having a well-known trademark

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

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 Panels have decided that a

and that the continued holding of the Domain Name is in bad faith This is consistent with the holding in Pfizer Inc v Legal Dept Barry McMahon and Pfizer ltd Sys Admin WIPO Case No D2013-2046 In addition it has been held in previous UDRP

UNDER CONSTRUCTION However passive holding does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith and can constitute use in bad faith as recognized by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The relevant issue is not

Case No D2000-0003 that the passive holding of a domain name by a respondent may amount to the respondent acting in bad faith Accordingly the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith 7 Decision For the

the Disputed Domain Name The passive holding of a 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 the respondent that would be legitimate and not

Further Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name is not sufficient to establish that it is being used in bad faith FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the

mera detenzione passiva c.d passive holding di un nome a dominio può costituire in presenza di ulteriori circostanze a prova della malafede del registrante che nella fattispecie in esame si ravvisano un utilizzo in malafade ai sensi della Policy

and 188207.cc However mere passive holding of a disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith see Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the present dispute the Complainant has a strong

the Disputed Domain Names 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 Respondents that would be legitimate and not

considers an instance of passive holding As many UDRP panels have indicated in numerous decisions the fact that a domain name is passively held does not prevent a finding of bad faith Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A v Victor Edet Okon WIPO

the question of whether the passive holding of a domain name could constitute bad faith Paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 states that panels have found that the apparent lack of so-called active use e.g to resolve to a website of the domain

�被投诉人消极持有 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� �主要理� �如下： 除去� �� �词 booking 及� ��

argues that this is a type of passive holding which can still constitute an act of bad faith In this case claims the Complainant there are a number of surrounding circumstances indicating bad faith use The Respondent has registered two domain names