Domain Name resolves This is passive holding A number of cases have found passive holding to be evidence of bad faith See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 I t is possible in certain circumstances for inactivity by

PANEL DECISION Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A v Prince Amin Access Point Technologies Case No D2016-1052 1 The Parties The Complainant is Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A of Pully Switzerland represented by Valea AB Sweden The Respondent

some panels have found that passive holding sporadic use or parking of a domain name constitute a non-legitimate intent at registration and cannot support a finding of rights or legitimate interest Complainant alleges that Respondent has

that Respondent is simply passively holding the disputed domain name that passive holding is bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible legitimate use It cannot be ruled out that Respondent uses or will use the disputed domain name

that the Respondent is in passive holding of the Domain Name which falls within Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra The Panel is prepared to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the Domain Name was registered and

the Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of bad faith registration and use Accordingly the Panel finds on the basis of the evidence presented that the Respondent registered and is using the

FA 95095 Forum July 31 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true see also Talk City Inc v Robertson D2000-0009 WIPO Feb 29 2000 In the

the Respondent engages in passive holding of the Domain Name which satisfies the situations clarified in the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and constitutes bad faith The Respondent has

time being the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name and is engaging in no activity Passive holding has also been accepted as a sufficient bad faith indicator in a number of UDRP cases See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

this use can be considered as passive holding which is harmful for the Complainant considering the nature of its activities Indeed the Complainant is constantly exposed to counterfeiting and fishing attempts and has a duty to protect its clients

the Policy In any case 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

in het geheel niet gebruikt passive holding Niet in te zien is wat het recht of legitieme belang van Verweerder hierbij is anders dan het dwars zitten van Eiseres een concurrent van zijn werkgever Eiseres concludeert derhalve dat zij prima facie

and is therefore being passively held by the Respondent In this regard the Panel notes that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 given the

domain name for a website i.e passive holding constitutes bad faith Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of showing bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under paragraph 4 a iii of the

constitutes bad faith use as passive holding The apparent lack of so-called active use e.g to resolve to a website of the disputed domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such

Forum Apr 22 2002 Respondent passive holding of the domain name demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interests Given the forgoing Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy Paragraph 4 a ii and conclusively demonstrates

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

gain In addition Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name and steps to hide its true identity through the use of robots.txt webcrawler circumvention techniques are under the circumstances involving this case additional evidence of

that inaction or passive holding of a domain name confusingly similar to a well-known trademark can constitute use in bad faith See Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 PRL USA Holdings Inc and Ralph Lauren

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and recently HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co KG HUGO BOSS AG v